Sea v. State
| Docket Number: | 2009-KA-01052-SCT | |
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 12-09-2010 Opinion Author: Dickinson, J. Holding: Reversed and remanded. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Sexual battery - Admission of videotapes - Weight of evidence - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Prior convictions - M.R.E. 609(b) - M.R.E. 403 Judge(s) Concurring: Carlson and Graves, P.JJ., Kitchens and Chandler, JJ. Dissenting Author : Randolph, J., Dissents With Separate Written Opinion Dissent Joined By : Waller, C.J., Lamar and Pierce, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 04-20-2009 Appealed from: YALOBUSHA COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: Andrew C. Baker Disposition: A Yalobusha County jury found Curtis Sea not guilty on three counts of statutory rape and one count of sexual battery, but guilty on five counts of sexual battery. Without filing a pretrial motion or obtaining a ruling on the issue, Sea’s counsel introduced evidence of his own client’s two prior criminal convictions – both of which had occurred approximately twenty-five years prior to trial. Sea’s counsel sat silent as the State introduced into evidence four videotapes of damaging forensic interviews of the four victims. District Attorney: JOHN W. CHAMPION Case Number: CR2007-41B(Y2) |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Curtis Lernard Sea |
OFFICE OF INDIGENT APPEALS: GEORGE T. HOLMES |
|
|
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: DEIRDRE McCRORY | ||
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: | Sexual battery - Admission of videotapes - Weight of evidence - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Prior convictions - M.R.E. 609(b) - M.R.E. 403 |
| Summary of the Facts: | Curtis Sea was found not guilty on three counts of statutory rape and one count of sexual battery, but guilty on five counts of sexual battery. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Videotapes Sea argues that the trial court committed reversible error by allowing the prosecutor to play videotaped interviews of the victims for the jury. Because his counsel failed to make a contemporaneous objection when the tapes were introduced, he waived any objection to their content. Issue 2: Weight of evidence Sea argues that his convictions were against the overwhelming weight of the evidence. The convictions are amply supported by the testimony of all four of the children and the incriminating content of the videotapes. Issue 3: Ineffective assistance of counsel Sea argues his counsel was ineffective. In discovery, Sea’s counsel asked the State to produce Sea’s criminal record “if proposed to be used to impeach . . . .” The State’s response disclosed a prolific criminal background, including a conviction for sexual battery in 1984, for which Sea was ordered to serve eighteen months, and another conviction for sexual battery in 1989, for which he was ordered to serve eight months. The latter offense, according to the indictment, involved a minor child under the age of thirteen. After receiving this information, Sea’s counsel did not file a motion to exclude the prior convictions. After the State rested its case-in-chief, Sea’s counsel called him to testify, and then announced: “I’m going to ask you about a couple of prior convictions that you have.” He then proceeded to ask Sea about his 1984 and 1988 convictions, including details of the crimes. The prosecutor’s cross-examination of Sea on these prior crimes – one of which had occurred twenty-five years earlier, and the other, twenty-one years earlier – consumed sixteen pages of transcript. When a criminal defendant chooses to testify, his prior criminal convictions may — under limited circumstances — be introduced for impeachment purposes. Under M.R.E. 609(b), it is not enough for the prosecutor to show that the probative value of the prior conviction outweighs its prejudicial effect under M.R.E. 403; the trial judge must determine the probative value substantially outweighs the prejudicial effect of the prior conviction. These prior convictions – and their attendant periods of incarceration – greatly exceeded the rule’s ten-year threshold, requiring the trial judge to conduct the Rule 609 balancing test. The convictions were not admissible unless the court found that the prejudice created by the convictions was substantially outweighed by their probative value. But Sea’s counsel filed no motion for exclusion of the convictions, so the trial court made no such finding. The State does not deny that Sea’s counsel was ineffective for introducing the convictions, but rather responds that Sea has failed to demonstrate he was prejudiced. This is not a case of overwhelming physical evidence; there was no physical evidence of sexual abuse. The physician’s examination of the children revealed no evidence of sexual abuse. The case was essentially Sea’s word versus the testimony of his accusers. And while there were four accusers, their trial testimony came almost entirely from the mouth of the prosecutor, with the children responding “yes, sir” or “no, sir.” Had the jury not seen the videotapes, the only evidence against Sea would have been, essentially, from the mouth of the prosecutor. Under these circumstances, evidence of Sea’s prior convictions for sexual battery – one involving a child under thirteen years of age – was incendiary. Additionally, Sea’s counsel failed to object to the introduction of the videotaped interviews of the four victims. The tapes were rife with hearsay statements from both the victims and the interviewers. Because Sea’s counsel was ineffective, the case is reversed and remanded for a new trial. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
