Hodgin v. State
| Docket Number: | 2004-KA-02039-SCT Linked Case(s): 2004-KA-02039-SCT ; 2004-KA-02039-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 07-26-2007 Opinion Author: Graves, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Fondling & Sexual battery - Expert witness - Admission of videotape - M.R.E. 404(b) - M.R.E. 803(25) - Right to confrontation - Defective indictment - Sufficiency of evidence Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Waller and Diaz, P.JJ., Easley, Carlson, Dickinson, Randolph and Lamar, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 06-30-2004 Appealed from: Sunflower County Circuit Court Judge: Richard Smith Disposition: Lenzy Hodgin was convicted of fondling and sexual battery in the Circuit Court of Sunflower County and sentenced to twenty years on each count to be served consecutively in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections. Thereafter, Hodgin’s post-trial motions were denied and he perfected this appeal. District Attorney: Joyce Ivy Chiles Case Number: 2003-0015-K |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Lenzy Louis Hodgin |
AELICIA L. THOMAS |
||
| 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: | Fondling & Sexual battery - Expert witness - Admission of videotape - M.R.E. 404(b) - M.R.E. 803(25) - Right to confrontation - Defective indictment - Sufficiency of evidence |
| Summary of the Facts: | Lenzy Hodgin was convicted of fondling and sexual battery and sentenced to twenty years on each count. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Expert witness Hodgin argues that the court erroneously accepted a witness as an expert in child abuse. However, Hodgin’s entire argument on this issue pertains to the witness as a forensic interviewer. Such an argument is improper because Hodgin had no objection to the witness being certified as an expert in forensic interviewing. Issue 2: Admission of videotape Hodgin argues that the court erred in allowing the videotape of the victim’s interview to be admitted into evidence without redacting a portion in which the victim is asked whether he had any knowledge of Hodgin’s committing similar offenses with other children. However, the victim’s statement does not include evidence of any other crimes, wrongs or acts as prohibited by M.R.E. 404(b). Therefore, the court did not err in admitting the videotape. Hodgin also argues that the court erred in allowing the victim’s mother to testify as to the statements the victim made to her under M.R.E. 803(25). Because the hearing was conducted outside the presence of the jury, the trial court found substantial indicia of reliability, and the child testified, this issue is without merit. Issue 3: Right to confrontation Hodgin argues that he should have been able to impeach the victim’s statements to the expert witness by showing that they were not corroborated by the victim’s cousin. Because Hodgin had the opportunity to call the cousin as a witness, this issue is without merit. Issue 4: Defective indictment Hodgin argues that the indictment is defective because it fails to provide the specific dates that the offenses occurred. Failure to provide the correct date in an indictment does not render the indictment insufficient. An indictment must inform a defendant of the nature and cause of the charges brought against him. Hodgin was put on notice of the nature and cause of the charges against him. Further, the victim’s testimony narrowed the time frame even more. Issue 5: Sufficiency of evidence In addition to testimony by the victim, the victim’s mother, and the expert witness, witnesses also testified at trial regarding Hodgin’s access to the victim and other visitors and the bathroom then used by both visitors and inmates, Hodgin’s attempts to place the victim on his list of approved visitors, Hodgin’s unauthorized possession of photographs of the victim stolen from the victim’s grandfather and the letters written by Hodgin to the victim and his family. This evidence was sufficient to support a conviction. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
