Taggart v. State
| Docket Number: | 2006-KA-00704-SCT | |
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 06-07-2007 Opinion Author: CARLSON, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Rape, Kidnapping & Armed robbery - Sufficiency of evidence - Prior conviction - Hearsay - M.R.E. 803(8) - URCCC 10.04(B)(1) Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Waller, P.J., Easley, Dickinson and Randolph, JJ. Dissenting Author : Diaz, P.J. Concurs in Result Only: Graves, J. Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 04-12-2006 Appealed from: DeSoto County Circuit Court Judge: Robert P. Chamberlin Disposition: A jury found Taggart guilty of rape, kidnapping and armed robbery. At the conclusion of the separate sentencing phase of the trial, the same jury returned sentences of life imprisonment as to each of the three capital offenses, whereupon the trial judge sentenced Taggart to serve these life sentences consecutively. District Attorney: John W. Champion Case Number: CR-2005-1011-CD |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | LEON D. TAGGART |
DAVID CLAY VANDERBURG |
||
| Appellee: | STATE OF MISSISSIPPI | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL |
|
|
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: | Rape, Kidnapping & Armed robbery - Sufficiency of evidence - Prior conviction - Hearsay - M.R.E. 803(8) - URCCC 10.04(B)(1) |
| Summary of the Facts: | Leon Taggart was convicted of rape, kidnapping and armed robbery. The jury returned sentences of life imprisonment as to each of the three capital offenses. Taggart appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Sufficiency of evidence Taggart challenges the sufficiency of the evidence. In reviewing the evidence, as well as the reasonable inferences which might be drawn from the evidence, in the light most favorable to the prosecution, the evidence shows that Taggart bound the victim and forcibly raped her, using the exhibition of the knife and threat of bodily harm to her and her niece if she resisted; DNA testing from the rape kit showed the presence of semen, but no sperm, in the victim’s vagina, but Dr. Scales testified that the absence of sperm in the semen was consistent with the male donor not reaching ejaculation; by constantly exhibiting the knife Taggart forced the victim to get in her car with him to drive to Winona; the two of them left in the victim’s car against her will, with her driving; and the victim made an ATM withdrawal of $55 and gave Taggart the cash because he had a knife stuck in her side. This evidence was sufficient to support the verdict. Issue 2: Prior conviction After jury deliberations in the first phase of the trial, the jury found Taggart not guilty of house burglary, but guilty of forcible rape, kidnapping, and armed robbery. After the conclusion of the guilt/innocence phase, the trial judge then proceeded to the sentencing phase before the same jury. As is customary, the prosecutor requested the trial judge to permit the State to incorporate all evidence adduced in the first phase of the trial into the record during the sentencing phase, so as to permit the jury to consider this prior evidence in arriving at the appropriate punishment. Without objection from defense counsel, the trial judge granted the State’s request. Over Taggart’s objection, the trial judge also allowed the State to introduce into evidence Taggart’s 1986 Texas conviction and sentence for second degree robbery. Taggart argues that the court erred in allowing Taggart’s prior Texas conviction into evidence during the sentencing phase of the trial. Taggart argues that the certified documentation concerning his Texas conviction was hearsay. The trial judge properly overruled Taggart’s objection. While the documentation was no doubt hearsay, this evidence was properly admitted by the trial judge pursuant to the hearsay exception under M.R.E. 803(8). While Taggart’s Texas robbery conviction was inadmissible during the guilt/innocence phase of the trial, the introduction of the prior Texas robbery conviction during the sentencing phase was not error and indeed was quite appropriate. Pursuant to URCCC 10.04(B)(1), the State may introduce for the benefit of the sentencing jury evidence of aggravation of the offense of which the defendant has been adjudged guilty. Such information of prior criminal activity on the part of Taggart would be wholly relevant in aiding the jury to reach its decision as to whether Taggart should be sentenced to life imprisonment. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
