Rumfelt v. State
| Docket Number: | 2004-KA-02497-COA Linked Case(s): 2004-KA-02497-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 08-08-2006 Opinion Author: Chandler, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Felony child abuse - Videotape of child - Demonstrative videotape - Circumstantial evidence instruction Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Southwick, Irving, Griffis, Barnes, Ishee and Roberts, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 11-19-2004 Appealed from: Yalobusha County Circuit Court Judge: Andrew C. Baker Disposition: CONVICTED OF FELONY CHILD ABUSE: SENTENCED TO SERVE A TERM OF TWENTY (20) YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Case Number: 2003-27-B-(Y2) |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Steven Daniel Rumfelt |
JOHN MICHAEL HORAN, MARK KEVIN HORAN |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: DANIEL HINCHCLIFF |
|
|
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 - Videotape of child - Demonstrative videotape - Circumstantial evidence instruction |
| Summary of the Facts: | Steven Rumfelt was convicted of felony child abuse and was sentenced to twenty years. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Videotape Rumfelt argues that the prejudicial effect of the videotape showing his son’s inability to control the movement of his feet without braces far outweighed the probative value. A defendant must preserve the error for review by making a contemporaneous objection or the assignment of error will be procedurally barred. Although Rumfelt made an objection to the videotape on the record, the issue is whether the objection was made contemporaneously. The contemporaneous objection rule means that the objection must be interposed at the time of the alleged error so that the trial court may be given an opportunity to rule. Rumfelt admits that “[a] strict reading of the Court transcript leaves it unclear whether an objection was lodged, but a bench conference was held prior to the introduction of this tape.” However, the bench conference was unrecorded, and the Mississippi Supreme Court has held that an unrecorded bench conference is not sufficient to enter a proper objection on the record. Issue 2: Demonstrative video Rumfelt argues that the introduction of the video demonstrating a “shaken baby” episode violated his Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses. Because no objection to the tape was made at trial, this issue is procedurally barred. Issue 3: Circumstantial evidence instruction Rumfelt argues that the court failed to properly instruct the jury on the State’s burden of proof. Although Rumfelt contends that the trial judge had the duty to properly instruct the jury, case law does not impose upon a trial court a duty to instruct the jury sua sponte, nor is a court required to suggest instructions in addition to those which the parties tender. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
