Richardson v. State


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2007-KA-00767-COA
Linked Case(s): 2007-KA-00767-COA

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 04-22-2008
Opinion Author: MYERS, P.J.
Holding: Affirmed

Additional Case Information: Topic: Fondling - Closed courtroom - Sufficiency of evidence
Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE, P.J., IRVING, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE, ROBERTS AND CARLTON, JJ.
Procedural History: Jury Trial
Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 05-02-2007
Appealed from: DeSoto County Circuit Court
Judge: Robert P. Chamberlin
Disposition: CONVICTION OF FONDLING AND SENTENCE OF FIVE YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND TEN YEARS POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION
District Attorney: John W. Champion
Case Number: CR2006-902-C-D

  Party Name: Attorney Name:   Brief(s) Available:
Appellant: JEFFREY ALLEN RICHARDSON




DAVID L. WALKER



 
  • Appellant #1 Brief

  • Appellee: STATE OF MISSISSIPPI OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: STEPHANIE BRELAND WOOD  

    Synopsis provided by:

    If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals
    hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office.

    Topic: Fondling - Closed courtroom - Sufficiency of evidence

    Summary of the Facts: Jeffrey Richardson was convicted of fondling and sentenced to five years and ten years post-release supervision. He appeals.

    Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Closed courtroom Richardson argues that the court erred in allowing the courtroom to be closed to the public during the testimony of the eleven-year-old victim. In certain cases, public exclusion may be appropriate to the extent necessary to avoid embarrassment or emotional disturbance to a witness which might result from that witness giving testimony in a particular case. Here, the trial court closed the courtroom to the public only during the testimony of the victim. Richardson and his counsel remained in the courtroom during that testimony. The trial court noted that only four people were required to exit the courtroom during this testimony, and the courtroom was again opened once the victim’s testimony was complete. Thus, the limitation was no broader than necessary to protect the victim during her testimony. Also, the trial court did all it could to protect the rights of both the victim and Richardson. Thus, there was no error in the trial court’s action in allowing the courtroom to be closed to the public during the victim’s testimony. Issue 2: Sufficiency of evidence Richardson argues that the State did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt lustful intent by Richardson in touching the victim and that the State did not prove that there was actual skin on skin contact between Richardson and the child. There was testimony from the victim that established Richardson touched or poked her “private area,” an area that was covered by her panties. A detective further testified that Richardson made several incriminating statements during their interview, which indicated there was inappropriate touching. These written statements were introduced into evidence. While Richardson’s testimony conflicted with the witnesses for the State, the jury heard all the evidence and testimony and found Richardson guilty. There is sufficient evidence in the record with which a reasonable juror could determine that the State proved all elements of the State’s case to allow the jury to properly convict Richardson.


    Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court