Goldman v. State
| Docket Number: | 2006-KA-02100-COA Linked Case(s): 2006-KA-02100-COA ; 2006-CT-02100-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 09-02-2008 Opinion Author: Griffis, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Burglary of dwelling, Sexual battery & Aggravated assault - Amendment of indictment - Limitation on cross-examination - M.R.E. 412(c)(1) - Admission of medical records - M.R.E. 803(4) - Visit with jury - Ineffective assistance of counsel Judge(s) Concurring: Kiing, C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Irving, Chandler, Barnes, Ishee, and Carlton, JJ. Concur in Part, Concur in Result 1: Roberts, J. without separate written opinion. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 02-23-2006 Appealed from: MADISON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: William E. Chapman, III Disposition: CONVICTED OF COUNT I, BURGLARY OF A DWELLING, WITH A SENTENCE OF TWENTY-FIVE YEARS; COUNT II, SEXUAL BATTERY, WITH A SENTENCE OF THIRTY YEARS TO RUN CONCURRENTLY TO THE SENTENCE IN COUNT I; AND COUNT III, AGGRAVATED ASSAULT, WITH A SENTENCE OF TWENTY YEARS TO RUN CONSECUTIVELY TO THE SENTENCES IN COUNTS I AND II, ALL IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS District Attorney: David Byrd Clark Case Number: 2004-0639 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | MICHAEL GOLDMAN |
JULIE ANN EPPS |
|
|
| 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: | Burglary of dwelling, Sexual battery & Aggravated assault - Amendment of indictment - Limitation on cross-examination - M.R.E. 412(c)(1) - Admission of medical records - M.R.E. 803(4) - Visit with jury - Ineffective assistance of counsel |
| Summary of the Facts: | Michael Goldman was convicted of burglary of a dwelling, sexual battery, and aggravated assault. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Amendment of indictment Goldman argues that the jury instruction given on the aggravated assault count constructively amended his indictment and changed both the method of the assault and the necessity of proving any injury. Because Goldman did not object to the difference in language used in the instruction and the indictment, he is procedurally barred from raising the instruction as error. In addition, the amendment to the indictment caused by the jury instruction did not materially alter Goldman’s defense or prejudice his case. His defense of consent was equally available after the jury was instructed. Issue 2: Limitation on cross-examination Goldman argues that he should have been allowed to cross-examine the victim about her past sexual relationship with him. There was no abuse of discretion on the part of the circuit judge in excluding this evidence. It is clear from the record before us that Goldman did not file written notice that he intended to offer evidence of the victim’s past sexual behavior within fifteen days before trial. Thus, the evidence was properly excluded because of Goldman’s failure to comply with M.R.E. 412(c)(1). It was also proper to exclude the evidence because the circuit judge determined it was irrelevant and prejudicial. Evidence of a prior sexual relationship was not relevant as to whether the victim consented that day, especially considering that the evidence showed Goldman broke into her house during the night and entered her bedroom with a large knife in his hand. Issue 3: Admission of medical records Goldman argues that the circuit court erred by allowing the State to introduce the victim’s medical records into evidence. The records were entered into evidence under M.R.E. 803(4) as a statement for the purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment. Goldman argues that the statement was introduced for the sole purpose of giving the jury a prior consistent statement of the victim and should not have been admitted as substantive evidence. Goldman made a specific objection at trial, and his objection was wholly unrelated to his argument on appeal. Therefore, this issue has been waived. In addition, the portions of the statement describing the penetration and the knife scratches on the victim’s body qualify as statements made for the purposes of medical treatment and were properly admitted under Rule 803(4). While the remainder of the statement containing the victim’s account of what happened that night should not have been admitted under M.R.E. 803(4), this error was harmless when compared to all of the other evidence considered by the jury. Issue 4: Visit with jury Goldman argues that he was prejudiced when the circuit judge visited with the jury after the verdict was returned, but before sentencing. This issue is procedurally barred. The record shows that Goldman did not contemporaneously object to the circuit judge’s comment that he would be visiting with the jury. Furthermore, Goldman has not shown how the fairness of his sentencing was affected in any way or how he was prejudiced by the meeting. There is nothing in the record that indicates the circuit judge discussed the merits of the case with the jury. Issue 5: Ineffective assistance of counsel Goldman argues that trial counsel failed to object to the constructive amendment of the indictment and give proper notice as to allow Goldman to put on evidence of a prior sexual relationship with the victim. Goldman has not shown that the jury’s verdict would have been different, but for these errors. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
