Poynor v. State


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2005-KA-01919-COA
Linked Case(s): 2005-KA-01919-COA ; 2005-CT-01919-SCT

Court of Appeals: Opinion Date: 11-21-2006
Opinion Author: Ishee, J.
Holding: Affirmed

Additional Case Information: Topic: Statutory rape & Child fondling - Defective indictment - Expert testimony - Bias of witnesses - Jury instructions - Ineffective assistance of counsel
Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Chandler, Griffis, Barnes and Roberts, JJ.
Concurs in Result Only: Southwick and Irving, JJ.
Procedural History: Jury Trial
Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 10-07-2005
Appealed from: Panola County Circuit Court
Judge: Andrew C. Baker
Disposition: Conviction of Count One, Statutory Rape, and sentence of ten years, with five years suspended, and Count Three, Child Fondling, and sentence of five years, all in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections, with Counts One and Three to run consecutively to each other
Case Number: CR-2005-45-B-P(2)

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: John Poynor, Sr.








 

Appellee: State of Mississippi  

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: Statutory rape & Child fondling - Defective indictment - Expert testimony - Bias of witnesses - Jury instructions - Ineffective assistance of counsel

Summary of the Facts: John Poynor, Sr. was convicted of statutory rape and child fondling. Poynor was sentenced to serve ten years, with five years suspended, for statutory rape, and five years for child fondling, with both sentences to be served consecutively. He appeals.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Defective indictment Poynor argues that the indictment was fatally flawed because it cited section 97-3-65(1)(a), but used the language of section 97-3-65(1)(b). Poynor has waived this issue because he failed to raise this issue in the court below. In addition, the indictment clearly stated that Poynor was being charged with statutory rape “in direct violation of Section 97-3-65(1)(a), Mississippi Code 1972 Annotated.” The indictment also clearly stated that Poynor had sexual intercourse with the victim through December of 2004, which was after her fourteenth birthday. Issue 2: Expert testimony Poynor argues that Dr. King’s testimony was inadmissible because she was not properly qualified as an expert witness and because her testimony regarding the general characteristics of other child sexual abuse victims was improper. Because Poynor failed to object to Dr. King’s qualification as an expert, he is procedurally barred from raising this issue on appeal. In addition, experts can testify as to common characteristics of sexually abused children. Issue 3: Bias of witnesses Poynor argues that the court erred in not allowing him to demonstrate the bias or prejudice of witnesses in this case. However, the record shows that Poynor testified that the reason he was being accused of sexually abusing the victims was “all about money.” The court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the Mother’s motive was a collateral matter that would not help the jury decide whether the statutory rape or fondling occurred. Issue 4: Jury instructions Poynor argues that the court erred in giving two jury instructions and in refusing to grant one jury instruction. Poynor made his theory of defense clear to the jury through the testimony of his witnesses. Issue 5: Ineffective assistance of counsel Poynor argues that his trial counsel was ineffective because he should have considered requesting severance of the charges, a M.R.E. 803(25) hearing, and a jury instruction that the proof in count two was insufficient to prove the crime charged in count two. The record reflects that Poynor’s trial counsel filed numerous pre-trial motions, including his successful motion to offer evidence of past sexual behavior, and that trial counsel presented numerous witnesses in Poynor’s defense. The record further reflects that Poynor’s trial counsel succeeded in having count two of the indictment dismissed. Poynor has not overcome the presumption that his attorney’s performance fell within a wide range of reasonably professional assistance and that the decisions made by his attorney were strategic.


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