Power v. State
| Docket Number: | 2008-KA-01663-COA Linked Case(s): 2008-KA-01663-COA ; 2008-CT-01663-SCT ; 2008-CT-01663-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 08-17-2010 Opinion Author: Ishee, J. Holding: Affirmed. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Statutory rape - Sufficiency of evidence - Hearsay Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Irving, Griffis, Barnes, Roberts, Carlton and Maxwell, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 08-19-2008 Appealed from: Choctaw County Circuit Court Judge: Joseph H. Loper Disposition: CONVICTED OF STATUTORY RAPE AND SENTENCED TO TWENTY YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS District Attorney: Doug Evans Case Number: 2008-001-CR |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Artis F. Power |
THOMAS HENRY FREELAND IV, BILLIE JO WHITE |
|
|
| 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 - Sufficiency of evidence - Hearsay |
| Summary of the Facts: | Artis Power was convicted of one count of statutory rape and was sentenced to twenty years. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Sufficiency of evidence Power argues that he presented evidence which sufficiently contradicted the victim’s statutory rape claim, and since her claim was uncorroborated, a directed verdict in his favor was in order. While it is true that the totally uncorroborated testimony of the sex-crime victim is sufficient to support a guilty verdict, it is only where the uncorroborated testimony is consistent with the circumstances and is not discredited or contradicted by other credible evidence. Here, the victim’s testimony was not discredited. Power argues that the victim’s testimony was sufficiently contradicted by the testimony of his wife, who testified that Power was impotent and, therefore, incapable of having sexual relations due to the medications he was taking for his back injury. However, Power neither offered any medical proof to support his wife’s contention, nor did he offer any expert or medical opinions as to his alleged impotency. He never testified himself that he was impotent. The mere testimony by his spouse that he was impotent, without more, is insufficient to contradict the claim of statutory rape. Issue 2: Hearsay Power argues that the trial court erred in admitting hearsay testimony from the victim. The answer given by the victim to the question that was objected to was not hearsay. It was a simple statement of fact – a statement that she had made a statement to her sister-in-law. Testimony as to the fact a statement was made is not hearsay. As to the rest of the testimony, which possibly included hearsay statements, there was no objection to that testimony as it was given. The failure to make a contemporaneous objection waives the issue on direct appeal. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
