Timmons v. State
| Docket Number: | 2008-KA-00696-COA Linked Case(s): 2008-KA-00696-COA ; 2008-CT-00696-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 01-26-2010 Opinion Author: Maxwell, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Statutory rape - Cross examination - M.R.E. 602 - M.R.E. 613(b) - M.R.E. 801 - M.R.E. 802 - Weight of evidence Judge(s) Concurring: Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Irving, Griffis, Barnes, Ishee, Roberts and Carlton, JJ. Concurs in Result Only: King, C.J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 04-15-2008 Appealed from: Lauderdale County Circuit Court Judge: Lester F. Williamson Disposition: CONVICTED OF STATUTORY RAPE AND SENTENCED TO TWENTY YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS WITH TEN YEARS SUSPENDED AND FIVE YEARS OF POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION AND TO PAY A $2,000 FINE AND $1,000 TO THE CHILDREN’S TRUST FUND District Attorney: Bilbo Mitchell Case Number: 821-06 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | RICHARD RAY TIMMONS |
LESLIE S. LEE, HUNTER NOLAN AIKENS |
|
|
| Appellee: | STATE OF MISSISSIPPI | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: JOHN R. HENRY, JR. | ||
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: | Statutory rape - Cross examination - M.R.E. 602 - M.R.E. 613(b) - M.R.E. 801 - M.R.E. 802 - Weight of evidence |
| Summary of the Facts: | Richard Timmons was convicted of statutory rape and sentenced to twenty years, with ten years suspended and five years of post-release supervision. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Cross-examination Timmons argues that the circuit court erred in limiting his cross-examination of the victim. Before trial, the victim informed law enforcement officers that she believed Timmons may be sexually involved with other teenage girls. When defense counsel attempted to question the victim about her statement, the State objected on relevance grounds. While the circuit judge determined the victim’s report to police was irrelevant, it appears from his ruling that he specifically found her responses were speculative in nature, and not intentionally false allegations. M.R.E. 602 makes clear that a witness may not testify to a matter unless evidence is introduced sufficient to support a finding that he or she has personal knowledge of the matter. Informing an investigating officer of a suspicion or possibility about which one is admittedly “unsure” is quite different than making a knowingly-false allegation. It was within the circuit court’s discretion to find the victim had insufficient personal knowledge about the other encounters, and that her statement was too speculative to be deemed relevant for impeachment as a prior inconsistent statement under M.R.E. 613(b). Furthermore, what she may have been told by another teenage girl was inadmissible hearsay under M.R.E. 801 and 802. Timmons also argues that the circuit court violated his right to confront his accuser by limiting his cross-examination. Though cross-examination is ordinarily broad in scope, it is within the sound discretion and inherent power of the circuit judge to limit cross-examination to only relevant matters. The testimony in question was not otherwise appropriate cross-examination material because of its speculative nature. In addition, any jealousy-related bias was already before the jury. Issue 2: Weight of evidence Timmons argues that the guilty verdict is against the weight of the evidence because of confusing and contradictory testimony from the victim. It is the function of the jury to weigh the evidence, evaluate witness credibility, and determine which witnesses are to be believed. Furthermore, a child victim’s variance when pressed for specific dates of when various sexual acts occurred is of little consequence. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
