Balouch v. State


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2003-CT-00386-SCT
Linked Case(s): 2003-CT-00386-SCT ; 2003-CT-00386-SCT ; 2003-KA-00386-COA ; 2003-KA-00386-COA

Supreme Court: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 10-05-2006
Opinion Author: Cobb, P.J.
Holding: THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS IS REVERSED. THE JUDGMENT OF THE PIKE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT IS REINSTATED AND AFFIRMED

Additional Case Information: Topic: Placing out of child - Grounds for certiorari - M.R.A.P. 17 - Sufficiency of evidence - Section 43-15-23
Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Waller, P.J., Easley, Carlson, Dickinson and Randolph, JJ.
Dissenting Author : Diaz, J.
Dissent Joined By : Graves, J.
Procedural History: Jury Trial
Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY
Writ of Certiorari: Granted
Appealed from Court of Appeals

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 02-18-2003
Appealed from: Pike County Circuit Court
Judge: Keith Starrett
Disposition: Balouch was found guilty of violating of Miss. Code Ann. §§ 43-15-23 (Rev. 2004). She was sentenced to three years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections, with one year to serve and two years on post-release supervision, and fined $1,000.
District Attorney: Dee Bates
Case Number: 02-423-KA

Note: The Supreme Court found that the Court of Appeals erred when it determined the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict because there was no evidence she received compensation for placing out D.L. See the original COA opinion at http://www.mssc.state.ms.us/Images/Opinions/CO29301.pdf

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: Vickie Balouch




L. ABRAHAM ROWE, JR.



 

Appellee: State of Mississippi OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: JEFFREY A. KLINGFUSS  

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: Placing out of child - Grounds for certiorari - M.R.A.P. 17 - Sufficiency of evidence - Section 43-15-23

Summary of the Facts: Vickie Balouch was convicted of the “placing out” of a child in violation of section 43-15-23. She was sentenced to three years, with one year to serve and two years on post-release supervision. She appealed, and the Court of Appeals reversed her conviction and rendered a verdict of not guilty. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: The Court of Appeals held the State failed to prove that Balouch arranged to place the child in a home for the purpose of free care and adoption pursuant to section 43-15-23(1). The Court of Appeals further held that even if Balouch illegally placed the child out, the State failed to prove she received or requested compensation for her services pursuant to section 43-15-23(2). The State argues that the Court of Appeals erred in its interpretation of the statutory language of section 43-15-23. Balouch argues that the State has no grounds for seeking a writ of certiorari, because none of the M.R.A.P. 17 grounds for granting certiorari exist. However, because the determination by the Court of Appeals was based on an erroneous interpretation of the plain language of section 43-15-23, this matter is properly before the Court on writ of certiorari pursuant to M.R.A.P. 17. The Court of Appeals stated that Balouch had to receive something of value to be guilty pursuant to section 43-15-23, but went on to hold Balouch did not request or receive a thing of value for placing out the child. Balouch never directly asked anyone to give her anything of value for the adoption. However, in order to prove Balouch guilty of placing out the child, the State need only prove she directly or indirectly requested a thing of value; the statute does not require she actually receive anything of value. The deception perpetrated by Balouch was established through testimony that Balouch claimed she was working with social services and attorney Jack Price, and that the adoption would cost approximately $5,000. However, she was not involved with either social services or Price. Given Balouch’s ongoing and exclusive relationship with the family regarding the potential adoption, together with her statement to them that the adoption would cost $5,000 despite the fact that she was not affiliated with an attorney or social services at the time, is sufficient for a rational juror to find she directly or indirectly requested a thing of value for placing out the child. Therefore, the Court of Appeals erred when it determined the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict. The Court of Appeals also held that to be guilty for the placing out of a child, the defendant had to actually place that child in another’s home. This holding is contrary to the plain language of the statute which states that “‘placing out’ means to arrange for the free care of a child in a family . . . . For the purpose of adoption.” The record is clear that Balouch made plans and prepared for the child’s adoption. Consequently, a rational juror could have, and in fact did determine that Balouch was guilty of the placing out of the child.


Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court