Poole v. State


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2009-KA-00420-SCT
Linked Case(s): 2009-KA-00420-SCT

Supreme Court: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 08-12-2010
Opinion Author: Dickinson, J.
Holding: Affirmed.

Additional Case Information: Topic: Statutory rape - Sufficiency of evidence - Evidence of penetration
Judge(s) Concurring: Waller, C.J., Carlson, P.J., Randolph, Lamar, Kitchens, Chandler and Pierce, JJ.
Concurs in Result Only: Graves, P.J.
Procedural History: Jury Trial; JNOV
Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 02-27-2009
Appealed from: MONROE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
Judge: Paul S. Funderburk
Disposition: Conviction of statutory rape and sentence of twenty (20) years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections, with ten (10) years suspended, and five (5) years of post-release supervision, with conditions.
District Attorney: John Richard Young
Case Number: CR-2008-000085

  Party Name: Attorney Name:   Brief(s) Available:
Appellant: James David Poole a/k/a Jim




GARY GOODWIN



 
  • Appellant #1 Brief

  • Appellee: State of Mississippi OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: LAURA H. 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: Statutory rape - Sufficiency of evidence - Evidence of penetration

    Summary of the Facts: James Poole was convicted of one count of statutory rape. He appeals.

    Summary of Opinion Analysis: Poole argues that his conviction was against the sufficiency and the weight of the evidence. He argues that the evidence as to whether he had sexual intercourse with the victim was insufficient. An individual may be found guilty of rape on the uncorroborated testimony of the prosecuting witness, where the testimony is not discredited or contradicted by other credible evidence. Poole argues that the uncontradicted evidence of the victim’s intact hymen contradicts her testimony. Although the Court has never adopted the rule that evidence of an intact hymen is not conclusive proof that there was no penetration, decisions from sister states which hold that evidence of an intact hymen is not conclusive proof that no penetration occurred are compelling. Thus, the evidence given by the victim’s testimony in this case was sufficient to establish the element of sexual intercourse.


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