Tillman v. State
| Docket Number: | 2005-KA-01260-COA Linked Case(s): 2005-CT-01260-SCT ; 2005-KA-01260-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 07-18-2006 Opinion Author: Irving, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Sexual battery & Fondling - Excluding public from courtroom - Competency of child witness - M.R.E. 601 Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Southwick, Chandler, Griffis, Barnes, Ishee and Roberts, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 06-17-2005 Appealed from: Tate County Circuit Court Judge: Ann H. Lamar Disposition: CONVICTED OF SEXUAL BATTERY (COUNT I) AND FONDLING OF A CHILD (COUNT II) AND SENTENCED TO TWENTY YEARS, WITH FIVE YEARS OF POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION ON COUNT I AND FIFTEEN YEARS ON COUNT II, SENTENCES TO RUN CONCURRENTLY IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS. District Attorney: JOHN W. CHAMPION Case Number: CR2004-22-L-T |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Roy Lee Tillman, Jr. |
DAVID L. WALKER |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: SCOTT STUART |
|
|
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: | Sexual battery & Fondling - Excluding public from courtroom - Competency of child witness - M.R.E. 601 |
| Summary of the Facts: | Roy Tillman, Jr. was convicted of sexual battery and fondling of a child. The court sentenced Tillman to twenty years, with five years of post-release supervision on the sexual battery charge and fifteen years on the fondling of a child charge. Tillman appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Excluding public from courtroom Tillman argues that the court erred in overruling his objection to the State’s motion to have the public excluded from the courtroom during the testimony of the victim, because the United States and Mississippi Constitutions guarantee him a right to a public trial. Generally, a defendant has a constitutional right to a public trial. However, that right is not absolute, but instead must be balanced against other interests essential to the administration of justice. The party seeking to close the hearing must advance an overriding interest that is likely to be prejudiced, the closure must be no broader than necessary to protect that interest, the trial court must consider reasonable alternatives to closing the proceeding, and it must make findings adequate to support the closure. Here, the trial court noted that the allegations involved acts of sexual penetration, more specifically, oral sex and digital penetration, as well as acts of fondling that occurred over a period of time. The court also recognized the sensitive nature of the testimony and the emotional state of the victim due to the sexual abuse. The victim was the first witness called to testify and the public was allowed to be present in the courtroom for the remainder of the trial. This case, which required a teenage girl to testify to potentially embarrassing or emotionally disturbing facts of a very sensitive and personal nature, clearly falls within the category of instances in which public exclusion is appropriate. Issue 2: Competency of child witness Tillman argues that the court erred in finding that the victim was competent to testify. M.R.E. 601 provides that every person is competent to be a witness unless they are incompetent or otherwise restricted. Before allowing the child to testify, the judge should determine that the child has the ability to perceive and remember events, to understand and answer questions intelligently and to comprehend and accept the importance of truthfulness. A review of the record reveals nothing that would indicate that the victim was not a competent witness. She exhibited normal intelligence. She had the ability to understand and answer questions asked of her, and she could remember explicit details about the sexual abuse that she had suffered. There is no indication that she was coerced or provoked into accusing Tillman of sexual abuse. Furthermore, there is nothing in the record that would indicate any mental deficiency or disease which would have affected her competency to testify. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
