Bridgeman v. State
| Docket Number: | 2009-KA-01389-COA Linked Case(s): 2009-KA-01389-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 11-02-2010 Opinion Author: Maxwell, J. Holding: Affirmed. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Statutory rape - Victim's statements - Tender years exception - M.R.E. 803(25) - Medical treatment exception - M.R.E. 803(4) - Impeachment evidence - Sufficiency of evidence Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Irving, Griffis, Barnes, Ishee and Roberts, JJ. Concurs in Result Only: Carlton, J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 05-19-2008 Appealed from: MADISON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: Samac Richardson Disposition: CONVICTED OF TWO COUNTS OF STATUTORY RAPE AND SENTENCED TO TWENTY-FIVE YEARS ON EACH COUNT, WITH THE SENTENCES TO RUN CONCURRENTLY IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS District Attorney: MICHAEL GUEST Case Number: 2006-0259 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Percy Bridgeman |
GEORGE T. HOLMES, LESLIE S. LEE |
|
|
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: W. GLENN WATTS | ||
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 - Victim's statements - Tender years exception - M.R.E. 803(25) - Medical treatment exception - M.R.E. 803(4) - Impeachment evidence - Sufficiency of evidence |
| Summary of the Facts: | Percy Bridgeman was convicted of two counts of statutory rape. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Victim’s statements Bridgeman argues that the circuit court erred in admitting the victim’s statements to Poe, Jackson, Lieutenant Burnside, and Dr. Bacon. After hearing from Poe, Jackson and Lieutenant Burnside, the circuit judge concluded their testimony about the victim’s statements was admissible under M.R.E. 803(25) — the tender-years hearsay exception. There is a rebuttable presumption that a child under the age of twelve is of tender years. Since the victim was eight years old when she made the statements, she qualifies as a child of tender years. As to other considerations under Rule 803(25), the victim’s statements obviously described sexual contact performed on her by Bridgeman. And because the victim testified at trial, no inquiry into her availability is necessary. So the remaining question under Rule 803(25) turns on the reliability of the victim’s statements. Following a Rule 803(25) hearing, conducted at the State’s request, the circuit court found sufficient indicia of reliability and admitted the victim’s statements made to these three witnesses. According to Lieutenant Burnside, the victim had no difficulty remembering details of the sexual abuse. She was calm through most of the interview but toward the end “broke down and started crying.” At that point, the interview was terminated. Jackson emphasized that she followed protocol in conducting her interview, and the victim had no difficulty remembering the details of what occurred. The victim’s statements were “spontaneous” and she was very fearful, withdrawn, and at times “crying uncontrollably” when she made the disclosures. According to Poe, the victim was “hanging her head” and “really shy-like” when she disclosed the abuse. These versions of the victim’s descriptions of the incidents of abuse identify specific acts Bridgeman performed on the victim. The circuit judge’s finding of reliability is further strengthened by the fact that the victim’s statements to multiple witnesses remained mostly consistent. And there is no apparent motive for the victim to fabricate the assaults. Because of the lack of evidence disputing that the victim was particularly likely to be telling the truth when the contested statements were made, there was no abuse of discretion in the circuit court’s admission of the victim’s statements to these witnesses. Bridgeman did not object to Dr. Bacon’s recital of the victim’s allegations of Bridgeman’s sexual abuse. Though the issue is waived, the hearsay exception found in Rule 803(4) applies to statements made in furtherance of medical diagnosis and treatment. Issue 2: Prior conviction Bridgeman argues that he is entitled to a new trial because of newly discovered evidence that a witness for the State had an undisclosed 2001 felony embezzlement conviction. Due process requires the government to disclose favorable, material evidence not otherwise discoverable through due diligence. Bridgeman neither suggests the State or its investigators had prior knowledge of the witness’s conviction, nor does he claim the prosecution in any way violated its affirmative duty to provide impeachment evidence. Even assuming an impermissible suppression, Bridgeman must convince the Court that there is a reasonable probability the result of his trial would have been different had the conviction been disclosed to the defense. Based on the evidence in this case, including the victim’s testimony, the corroborative testimony of Lieutenant Burnside, who accompanied Jackson during one of the interviews, and the favorable inferences drawn from Dr. Bacon’s and Dr. Foose’s medical testimony, the merely impeaching evidence does not undermine confidence in the jury’s guilty verdict. Issue 3: Sufficiency of evidence Bridgeman argues his conviction is not supported by sufficient evidence or the weight of the evidence. Bridgeman was more than thirty years older than the victim and not her spouse. And although she used a more age-appropriate term, “private part,” the victim testified at trial that Bridgeman committed various sexual acts involving penetration of both his finger and penis into her vagina on or near the charged dates. Medical evidence likewise created a strong inference that Bridgeman had given the victim a sexually transmitted disease. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the guilty verdict, the testimony and medical evidence strongly support the two statutory rape convictions. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
