Sheffield v. State


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2009-KA-01635-COA
Linked Case(s): 2009-KA-01635-COA

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 03-22-2011
Opinion Author: Maxwell, J.
Holding: Affirmed.

Additional Case Information: Topic: Fondling - Simple assault instruction - Sufficiency of evidence
Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Irving and Griffis, P.JJ., Myers, Ishee and Roberts, JJ.
Concur in Part, Concur in Result 1: Barnes, J.
Concurs in Result Only: Carlton, J.
Procedural History: Jury Trial
Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 09-18-2009
Appealed from: Lauderdale County Circuit Court
Judge: Robert Walter Bailey
Disposition: Convicted of Touching a Child for Lustful Purposes and Sentenced to Fifteen Years in the Mississippi Department of Corrections, with Five Years Suspended and Five Years of Supervised Probation, and to Pay a $2,000 Fine, $500 in Restitution, and $1,000 to the Mississippi Children's Trust Fund
District Attorney: Bilbo Mitchell
Case Number: 272-08

  Party Name: Attorney Name:   Brief(s) Available:
Appellant: Luther Sheffield a/k/a Luther Wayne Sheffield, Jr.




LESLIE S. LEE, DAVID A. STEPHENSON, BENJAMIN ALLEN SUBER



 
  • Appellant #1 Brief

  • Appellee: State of Mississippi OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: BILLY L. GORE  

    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 - Simple assault instruction - Sufficiency of evidence

    Summary of the Facts: Luther Sheffield was convicted of fondling and sentenced to fifteen years, with five years suspended and five years of supervised probation. He appeals.

    Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Simple assault instruction Sheffield argues he was entitled to an instruction on simple assault because simple assault is a lesser-included offense of fondling. However, simple assault is not a lesser-included offense of fondling. To be a lesser-include offense, all the elements of simple assault must be included in the elements of fondling. And it must be impossible to commit the greater offense without at the same time committing the lesser included offense. A person can be guilty of fondling by offensive touching which denotes sexual gratification which, while emotionally uncomfortable, does not necessarily cause bodily injury. Thus, the element of bodily injury or imminent fear of serious bodily harm is not necessarily included in the offense of fondling. Assault, however, under certain circumstances, may be a lesser non-included offense of fondling, carrying a lesser punishment. The trial court should grant the instruction unless it can say, taking the evidence in the light most favorable to the accused, and considering all reasonable favorable inferences which may be drawn in favor of the accused from the evidence, that no reasonable jury could find the defendant guilty of the lesser non-included offense (and conversely not guilty of at least one element of the principal charge). The trial judge denied the assault instruction because there was no evidence supporting a reasonable juror’s finding that Sheffield’s actions were designed to instill imminent fear of serious bodily injury. Because none of the evidence shows that Sheffield attempted to put his daughter in fear of serious bodily harm, Sheffield was not entitled to an instruction on the lesser non-included offense of simple assault. Issue 2: Sufficiency of evidence Sheffield argues the jury misunderstood his caressing of his daughter and wrongfully interpreted his intention underlying the touching. He argues that because neither his daughter nor his wife had confronted Sheffield at the time the touching occurred, the jury should have properly inferred that his behavior was neither inappropriate nor a violation of the law. Sheffield was thirty-four years old, and his daughter was fifteen. Sheffield’s daughter testified he kissed her on the lips and rubbed her near her groin. She also testified Sheffield had often touched her in a way that felt uncomfortably sexual and talked explicitly about his having sex with her mother. Her two friends who witnessed Sheffield fondle his daughter testified Sheffield’s behavior appeared inappropriate and sexual in nature. Thus, sufficient evidence existed for the jury to find Sheffield guilty of touching a child for lustful purposes.


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