Abernathy v. State


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2008-KA-01457-SCT

Supreme Court: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 03-04-2010
Opinion Author: Pierce, J.
Holding: Affirmed

Additional Case Information: Topic: Sexual battery - Expert testimony - M.R.E. 103 - M.R.E. 403 - Sufficiency of evidence
Judge(s) Concurring: Carlson, P.J., Dickinson, Randolph and Lamar, JJ.
Dissenting Author : Graves, P.J., with separate written opinion.
Dissent Joined By : Waller, C.J., Kitchens and Chandler, JJ.
Procedural History: Jury Trial
Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 02-04-2008
Appealed from: RANKIN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
Judge: Samac Richardson
Disposition: Conviction of sexual battery and sentence of thirty (30) years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections, with conditions; The last twenty (20) years of the sentence are hereby stayed and that portion of the sentence is suspended. Upon release, the appellant shall be placed on supervised probation under the direct supervision of the Mississippi Department of Corrections for five (5) years.
District Attorney: Michael Guest
Case Number: 17779

  Party Name: Attorney Name:   Brief(s) Available:
Appellant: David Abernathy




JOSEPH PATRICK FRASCOGNA



 
  • Appellant #1 Brief

  • Appellee: State of Mississippi OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: LAURA HOGAN TEDDER  

    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 - Expert testimony - M.R.E. 103 - M.R.E. 403 - Sufficiency of evidence

    Summary of the Facts: David Abernathy was convicted of sexual battery. He was sentenced to thirty years, with twenty years suspended and a period of five years on supervised probation. He appeals.

    Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Expert testimony Abernathy argues that the trial court erred because it determined that his expert’s testimony was irrelevant. M.R.E. 103 provides that when a party objects to the exclusion of evidence, he must make an offer of proof to the court, noting on the record for the benefit of the appellate court what evidence the trial judge excluded. It is evident from the trial transcript that the defense failed to make a sufficient proffer after the trial court excluded the expert’s testimony. The record is insufficient for a determination of whether the testimony could have survived under the M.R.E. 403 balancing test for admissibility. Issue 2: Sufficiency of evidence Abernathy argues that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support the verdict. The case largely consisted of the victim’s word against the defendant’s. This presents a factual dispute to be resolved by a jury.


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