Wilson v. State
| Docket Number: | 2007-KA-01397-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 09-16-2008 Opinion Author: Lee, P.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Fondling & Sexual battery - Multi-count indictment - Sworn jury - Vague indictment - Jury instructions - Voice-stress analysis test - Sufficiency of evidence Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Myers, 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: 06-16-2006 Appealed from: Harrison County Circuit Court Judge: Jerry O. Terry, Sr. Disposition: CONVICTED OF COUNT I, FONDLING, AND SENTENCED TO SEVEN YEARS AND COUNT II, SEXUAL BATTERY, AND SENTENCED TO TWENTY YEARS, WITH BOTH SENTENCES TO BE SERVED CONCURRENTLY IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS District Attorney: Cono A. Caranna, II Case Number: B2401-05-0289 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | DAVID PAUL WILSON |
DOYLE LEE COATS,
ROSS PARKER SIMONS |
|
|
| Appellee: | STATE OF MISSISSIPPI | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: DEIRDRE MCCRORY | ||
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 & Sexual battery - Multi-count indictment - Sworn jury - Vague indictment - Jury instructions - Voice-stress analysis test - Sufficiency of evidence |
| Summary of the Facts: | David Wilson was convicted of one count of fondling and one count of sexual battery. Wilson was sentenced to seven years on the fondling count and twenty years on the sexual battery count. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Multi-count indictment Wilson argues that it was reversible error for him to be tried on a multi-count indictment. Wilson’s crimes formed a common scheme of sexual misconduct. All the crimes occurred over a period of time against the same victim in a similar manner. Thus, this issue is without merit. Issue 2: Sworn jury Wilson argues that the jury was not properly sworn as required by statute. The transcript does not indicate the actual giving of the oath. However, the cover page of the transcript states that the jury was duly impaneled, and a jury instruction states that the jury took an oath. Wilson’s assertion is insufficient to overcome the established presumption that the trial court properly performed its duties. Issue 3: Vague indictment Wilson argues that the indictment was too vague to defend because the dates of the charges were not included in the indictment. The indictment alleged that the crimes were committed on or between June 2003 to November 2003. As long as the defendant is fully advised of the charges against him, then a specific date in an indictment alleging child sexual abuse is not required. Wilson was fully and fairly apprised of the charges against him. Issue 4: Jury instructions Wilson argues that the trial court erred in giving a number of jury instructions. The instructions properly stated the law, and there was no error. Issue 5: Voice-stress analysis test Wilson argues that the trial court erred in excluding evidence of a voice-stress-analysis test, because the trial court failed to conduct a Daubert analysis before ruling on the admissibility of the voice-stress test. A detective administered a voice-stress analysis on Wilson and determined that Wilson was truthful in his denials of the allegations. There is nothing in the record to show that Wilson asked the trial court to conduct a Daubert hearing. Issue 6: Sufficiency of evidence Wilson argues that the verdict was insufficient as a matter of law. In regard to the fondling count, Wilson argues that there was no evidence his actions were for the purpose of gratifying his lust. However, there was testimony from the victim that Wilson had an erection during one of the encounters. In regard to the sexual battery count, Wilson argues that there was no medical testimony to prove penetration and that the testimony at trial did not prove penetration. However, the victim testified that Wilson had placed two fingers inside her. The jury clearly found the victim’s testimony to be more credible. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
