Morgan v. State
| Docket Number: | 2007-KA-00608-COA Linked Case(s): 2007-KA-00608-COA ; 2007-CT-00608-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 06-10-2008 Opinion Author: KING, C.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Sexual battery - Hearsay - M.R.E. 803(4) - Jury instruction - Sufficiency of evidence Judge(s) Concurring: LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., CHANDLER, BARNES, ISHEE, ROBERTS AND CARLTON, JJ. Concurs in Result Only: IRVING AND GRIFFIS, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 03-02-2007 Appealed from: Jasper County Circuit Court Judge: Robert G. Evans Disposition: CONVICTED OF SEXUAL BATTERY AND SENTENCED TO SERVE A TERM OF THIRTY YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS District Attorney: Eddie H. Bowen Case Number: 15-13 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | STANLEY MORGAN |
ROBERT WENDELL JAMES |
|
|
| Appellee: | STATE OF MISSISSIPPI | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: BILLY L. GORE | ||
| Appellee #2: | ||||
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: | Sexual battery - Hearsay - M.R.E. 803(4) - Jury instruction - Sufficiency of evidence |
| Summary of the Facts: | Stanley Morgan was convicted of the sexual battery of a twelve-year-old child. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Hearsay Morgan argues that the State violated the “Agreed Order Concerning Hearsay” that he entered into with the State, and that the hearsay statement made by the pediatrician reinforced in the jury’s mind that he was guilty of the crime. Before admitting testimony pursuant to M.R.E. 803(4), the statement must pass a two-part test: the declarant’s motive in making the statement must be consistent with the purposes of promoting treatment and the content of the statement must be such as is reasonably relied on by a physician in treatment. Statements made by a child sexual abuse victim concerning the acts of sexual abuse, along with the identity of the perpetrator, are reasonably pertinent to treatment and are reasonably relied upon by physicians in diagnosis and treatment. It is clear that the pediatrician’s testimony related solely to issues consistent with the victim’s treatment. The statement that “her mother’s ex-boyfriend was sexually abusing her” is the type of information doctors rely upon to diagnose and treat patients under these circumstances. Issue 2: Jury instruction Morgan argues that the court erred in refusing to grant his instruction stating that “The court instructs the jury that the uncorroborated testimony of a victim should be examined closely and be scrutinized with caution.” Morgan’s requested instruction essentially asked the jury to be cautious of his child-victim’s testimony. Morgan’s requested instruction is improper and is not supported by legal authority. Issue 3: Sufficiency of evidence Morgan argues that because the victim’s testimony was uncorroborated and because there was a lack of physical evidence connecting him to the crime, the State did not meet its burden of proof. After reviewing all evidence in the light most favorable to the State, there was sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to convict Morgan of sexual battery. The State offered proof that Morgan, then thirty years old, engaged in sexual penetration of the victim, who was only twelve years old at the time. The victim described several separate incidents from October 2003 to October 2004 where Morgan forced her to engage in sexual intercourse and oral sex with him. The pediatrician testified that her examination of the victim revealed that the child had been subject to significant vaginal penetration. Also, both the victim and her mother tested positive for chlamydia. The victim’s mother testified that Morgan was the only person with whom she had sexual relations during that time. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
