Rutland v. State
| Docket Number: | 2008-CT-01544-SCT Linked Case(s): 2008-KA-01544-COA ; 2008-KA-01544-COA ; 2008-CT-01544-SCT ; 2008-CT-01544-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 03-17-2011 Opinion Author: Carlson, P.J. Holding: Affirmed. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Felony child abuse - Sufficiency of evidence - Juror misconduct - URCCC 10.05 - M.R.E. 606(b) Judge(s) Concurring: Waller, C.J., Randolph, Lamar and Pierce, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): King, J. Dissenting Author : Kitchens, J. With Separate Written Opinion Dissent Joined By : Dickinson, P.J.; Chandler, J., Joins This Opinion In Part Dissenting Author : Chandler, J. With Separate Written Opinion Dissent Joined By : Dickinson, P.J., and Kitchens, J. In Part Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 08-24-2007 Appealed from: Franklin County Circuit Court Judge: Forrest A. Johnson, Jr. Disposition: Loni Marie Rutland was convicted of felony child abuse in a jury trial in the Circuit Court of Franklin County. Rutland was sentenced to twenty years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections, with ten years suspended and ten years to serve. District Attorney: Ronnie Lee Harper Case Number: 06-KR-039 |
|
| Note: | The opinion of the Court of Appeals from 2/16/2010 is located at http://www.mssc.state.ms.us/Images/Opinions/CO60841.pdf | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Loni Marie Rutland |
WILLIAM ANDY SUMRALL, THOMAS P. WELCH, 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: | Felony child abuse - Sufficiency of evidence - Juror misconduct - URCCC 10.05 - M.R.E. 606(b) |
| Summary of the Facts: | Loni Rutland was convicted of felony child abuse and was sentenced to twenty years, with ten years suspended and ten years to serve. She appealed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed Rutland’s conviction and sentence. The Supreme Court granted certiorari. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Sufficiency of evidence Rutland challenges both the sufficiency and weight of the evidence. The record and the applicable law support the Court of Appeals’ decision as to these issues. The Court of Appeals thoroughly addressed these issues and set out the evidence in the record which supported its findings that the evidence was legally sufficient to sustain the guilty verdict and that the guilty verdict was not so contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence that the court, on appeal, would be sanctioning an unconscionable injustice by allowing the guilty verdict to stand. Issue 2: Juror misconduct URCCC 10.05 sets out grounds on which the trial court may grant a new trial. These grounds include “[i]f required in the interests of justice,” and “[i]f the jury has received any evidence, papers or documents, not authorized by the court.” Rutland focuses much of her argument on the assertion that, during deliberations, the jury – through the use of improper extraneous information – determined that neglect and abuse had the same meaning, and, therefore, Rutland was guilty of abuse. Rutland’s argument is based on a juror’s statement, which is deemed improper for consideration under M.R.E. 606(b). Thus, Rutland may not base her argument for a new trial on a statement that is prohibited by our Rules. In addition to improperly basing much of her argument on the juror’s statement, Rutland also fails to demonstrate how she was prejudiced by the juror’s impropriety. The trial court was made aware of the perceived impropriety through Rutland’s motion for a new trial. The State, in its response, conceded that a juror had looked up the definitions of the words abuse and neglect, but argued that this did not prejudice the jury’s verdict. Because the definitions were not provided by the trial court, there is no presumed prejudice. Rutland must demonstrate how the jury’s verdict was prejudiced by the external influence. Also, Rutland’s claim is not supported by affidavit. The only evidence in this case of the external influence is a juror’s statement made after the trial to Rutland’s boyfriend at a gas station. Without providing more than the statement contained in her motion – most of which is inadmissible under Rule 606(b) – Rutland cannot demonstrate that she was prejudiced by the juror’s use of the definitions. The only part of the juror’s statement that is permissible under Rule 606(b) is the fact that he and another juror looked up the definitions of the words abuse and neglect. Moreover, Rutland presents no evidence of what type of dictionary was used or what the actual definitions were. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
