Aguilar v. State
| Docket Number: | 2005-KA-01273-COA Linked Case(s): 2005-KA-01273-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 12-05-2006 Opinion Author: Chandler, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Fondling a child - Sufficiency of evidence - Limit on cross-examination - M.R.E. 412 - Expert testimony - Sequestration - M.R.E. 615(3) - M.R.E. 703 - Other victims’ testimony Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Southwick, Irving, Barnes, Ishee and Roberts, JJ. Judge(s) Concurring Separately: Griffis, J., joined by Southwick, Ishee and Roberts, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 06-27-2005 Appealed from: PANOLA COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: ANN H. LAMAR Disposition: CONVICTED OF FONDLING A CHILD AND SENTENCED TO FIFTEEN YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND PAY $100.00 TO THE MISSISSIPPI CRIME VICTIMS FUND. District Attorney: JOHN W. CHAMPION Case Number: CR-2004-162-LP2 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Benny Aguilar a/k/a Benny Soliz Aguilar |
HELEN BAGWELL KELLY |
||
| 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: | Fondling a child - Sufficiency of evidence - Limit on cross-examination - M.R.E. 412 - Expert testimony - Sequestration - M.R.E. 615(3) - M.R.E. 703 - Other victims’ testimony |
| Summary of the Facts: | Benny Aguilar was convicted of fondling a child and sentenced to fifteen years. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Sufficiency of evidence Aguilar challenges the sufficiency of the evidence that he touched, handled or rubbed the victim for the purpose of gratifying his lust or indulging his depraved licentious sexual desires. Aguilar points out that there was no physical evidence and that the strongest evidence against him was the victim's own testimony, which was uncorroborated. The unsupported testimony of a sex crime victim is sufficient to sustain a conviction if that testimony is not discredited or contradicted by other credible evidence, particularly when the victim's conduct is consistent with that of a person who has been the victim of a sex crime. The fact that the victim in this case did not immediately report the abuse and appeared normal to witnesses who saw her after the abuse did not render her testimony legally insufficient. The evidence was sufficient to enable a reasonable juror to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Aguilar touched, handled, or rubbed the victim for the purpose of gratifying his lust or indulging his depraved licentious sexual desires. Issue 2: Limit on cross-examination Aguilar argues that the court erred by limiting his questioning of the victim about her past sexual conduct. Aguilar argues that the cross-examination would have shown that the victim was lying about never having had sex and thus the evidence was impeaching and constitutionally required to be admitted under M.R.E. 412(b)(1). For admissibility under Rule 412(b)(1), the other evidence of past sexual behavior must not only be constitutionally required to be admitted but must be admitted in accordance with subdivisions (c)(1) and (c)(2). Since Aguilar failed to comply with subsections (c)(1) and (c)(2), there was no error in the court's limitation of Aguilar's cross-examination of the victim about her past sexual history. Issue 3: Expert testimony The State offered an expert witness in the field of forensic interviewing. Aguilar argues that the court erred in allowing the witness to testify as an expert in the field of forensic interviewing. Because Aguilar failed to object at the trial to the qualification of Sample as an expert, this issue is waived for consideration on appeal. Issue 4: Sequestration Aguilar argues that the court erred by allowing the expert witness to remain in the courtroom for the duration of the trial pursuant to M.R.E. 615(3). Under Rule 615(3), an expert witness may be permitted to remain in the courtroom during the testimony of other witnesses. This practice complements M.R.E. 703, which allows an expert to base an opinion on facts or data perceived by or made known to him at or before the hearing. Here, the court permitted the expert to remain in the courtroom during the testimony both to assist the prosecutor and to enable her to render opinions based on the testimony. There was no abuse of discretion. The expert's remaining in the courtroom allowed her to formulate opinion testimony pursuant to Rule 703. Issue 5: Sentencing phase During the sentencing phase, the court heard the testimony of several other alleged victims of sexual abuse by Aguilar. Aguilar argues that the alleged victims' testimony was inadmissible at the sentencing hearing because it concerned matters not before the court, had no substantial indicia of reliability, and was clearly prejudicial to Aguilar. Aguilar's failure to provide any authority for his argument has waived any error concerning this issue. In addition, the court is not limited during sentencing to the consideration of the evidence that was presented of record during the trial. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
