Cox v. State
| Docket Number: | 2008-KA-02140-COA Linked Case(s): 2008-KA-02140-COA ; 2008-CT-02140-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 12-14-2010 Opinion Author: Ishee, J. Holding: Affirmed. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Carjacking, Kidnapping & Forcible rape - Jury instruction - Chain of custody - Hearsay - M.R.E. 803(4) - Sufficiency of evidence - Civil suit - M.R.E. 401 - M.R.E. 403 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: 09-29-2008 Appealed from: Hinds County Circuit Court Judge: Bobby DeLaughter Disposition: CONVICTED OF COUNT I, FORCIBLE RAPE, AND SENTENCED TO TWENTYEIGHT YEARS; COUNT II, CARJACKING, AND SENTENCED TO FIFTEEN YEARS; AND COUNT III, KIDNAPPING, AND SENTENCED TO THIRTY YEARS, WITH THE SENTENCES TO RUN CONSECUTIVELY IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS District Attorney: ROBERT SHULER SMITH Case Number: 07-0-615 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Patrick William Cox |
WILLIAM R. LABARRE, VIRGINIA LYNN WATKINS, ALISON OLIVER KELLY |
|
|
| 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: | Carjacking, Kidnapping & Forcible rape - Jury instruction - Chain of custody - Hearsay - M.R.E. 803(4) - Sufficiency of evidence - Civil suit - M.R.E. 401 - M.R.E. 403 |
| Summary of the Facts: | Patrick Cox was convicted of carjacking, kidnapping, and forcible rape. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Jury instruction Cox argues that the trial court committed reversible error in giving an instruction which impermissibly subjected him to an ex-post-facto law in violation of his constitutional rights. A defendant is entitled to have jury instructions given which present his theory of the case; however, this entitlement is limited in that the court may refuse an instruction which incorrectly states the law, is covered fairly elsewhere in the instructions, or is without foundation in the evidence. Although it is true that the statute under which Cox was indicted was changed after the crime was committed, the change did not alter or significantly broaden the crime that was committed against the victim. In fact, the statute was changed in order to make the crime of forcible rape gender neutral. Cox was indicted for the forcible rape of a female. Thus, the trial court gave an accurate recitation of the law. Issue 2: Chain of custody Cox argues that the trial court improperly admitted the rape kits performed on the victim and Cox, because there was a contradiction in the testimonies of those responsible for the chain of custody. The test of whether there has been a proper showing of the chain of possession of evidence is whether there is any indication or reasonable inference of probable tampering with the evidence or substitution of the evidence. Although it is true that two officers both testified as to being the one who had delivered the rape kits to the Scales Laboratory for testing, the trial court concluded that any discrepancies regarding who had taken the kits to the lab, and then returned them after testing, could be dealt with on cross-examination. Further, both DNA analysts who ran tests on the rape kits gave testimony regarding the condition of the kits, and both agreed that there was no evidence of contamination or degradation when the kits were submitted for testing. Thus, there was no error. Issue 3: Hearsay Cox argues that testimony from a UMC social worker does not meet the requirements of M.R.E. 803(4), because the social worker is not a diagnostician. The rule states that if the trial court finds the circumstances surrounding the statement indicate substantial trustworthiness, the statement can be admitted regardless as to whom the statement was made. The trial court found that because the statements were made after the victim had just been brought into the hospital and because they were made in the company of a nurse and a police officer, there was enough trustworthiness to admit the statements. Furthermore, the testimony was corroborated by other witnesses including the victim. Issue 4: Sufficiency of evidence Cox argues that there was insufficient evidence to support a guilty verdict. There was sufficient, credible, substantial evidence for the jury to consider and return a verdict of guilty. The victim’s use of her cell phone during the attack, the DNA analysts who corroborated her testimony, and the fact that the nurse found “redness” or “erythema” on the victim’s labia minor all point to a verdict of guilty. Issue 5: Civil suit Cox argues that the trial court’s decision to exclude evidence of a civil action, which was filed by the victim against the convenience store where she was abducted, unfairly prevented him from being able to show bias or prejudice on the part of the victim. The trial court found that, under M.R.E. 401, any mentioning of the civil suit would not be relevant to the guilt or innocence of Cox regarding the charges submitted to the jury. Further, the trial court found that, even if the evidence was considered relevant, it could be excluded under M.R.E. 403. Cox has offered no compelling argument as to how the trial court abused its discretion in not allowing the testimony. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
