Johnson v. State
| Docket Number: | 2010-KA-00494-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 10-04-2011 Opinion Author: Barnes, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Statutory rape - Prior inconsistent statement - Limiting instruction - M.R.E. 105 - M.R.E. 609 - Sufficiency of evidence - Ineffective assistance of counsel Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Irving and Griffis, P.JJ., Ishee, Carlton, Maxwell and Russell, JJ. Judge(s) Concurring Separately: Roberts, J., concurs in part and in the result without separate written opinion Dissenting Author : Myers, J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 02-15-2010 Appealed from: Scott County Circuit Court Judge: Vernon Cotten Disposition: CONVICTED OF STATUTORY RAPE AND SENTENCED TO THIRTY YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS WITH FIFTEEN YEARS TO SERVE WITHOUT BENEFIT OF PAROLE, FIFTEEN YEARS SUSPENDED, AND FIVE YEARS OF POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION District Attorney: Mark Sheldon Duncan Case Number: 09-CR-91-SC-G |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Eddie Johnson, Jr. |
FELECIA PERKINS |
||
| 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: | Statutory rape - Prior inconsistent statement - Limiting instruction - M.R.E. 105 - M.R.E. 609 - Sufficiency of evidence - Ineffective assistance of counsel |
| Summary of the Facts: | Eddie Johnson Jr. was convicted of one count of statutory rape. Johnson was sentenced to thirty years, with fifteen years to serve without benefit of parole, fifteen years suspended, and five years of post-release supervision. Johnson appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Prior inconsistent statement In her written statement given to law enforcement, the victim stated that Johnson had sex with her on two separate occasions. However, in her testimony during direct examination at trial, the victim said that Johnson only had sex with her once. Johnson introduced the victim’s written statement into evidence for impeachment purposes, and he now argues that the circuit court erred by allowing it to be used as substantive evidence. While a prior inconsistent statement of a testifying witness can be used to impeach the witness’s credibility, it is not admissible as substantive evidence of the defendant’s guilt. However, defense counsel failed to object to the State’s comment at trial. The failure to make a timely objection to an issue at trial waives consideration of the issue on appeal. In addition, the only inconsistency in regard to the victim’s statement was related to the second incident, for which Johnson was not convicted. Issue 2: Limiting instruction Johnson argues that the circuit court should have issued sua sponte a limiting instruction to the jury regarding its consideration of the prior statement by the victim. Since defense counsel made no objection at trial, the issue is waived. In addition, since Johnson introduced the prior statement into evidence and never requested a limiting instruction, this issue lacks merit. Pursuant to M.R.E. 105, the burden falls upon defense counsel to request a limiting instruction in the context of the admittance of prior convictions through impeachment under M.R.E. 609. Issue 3: Sufficiency of evidence Johnson argues that the victim’s testimony was contradictory and that there was no physical evidence that she was raped. The unsubstantiated and uncorroborated testimony of a victim is sufficient to support a guilty verdict if that testimony is not discredited or contradicted by other credible evidence, especially if the conduct of the victim is consistent with conduct of one who has been victimized by a sex crime. Further, physical evidence is not necessary to support a conviction for rape. Here, the jury verdict was supported by sufficient evidence. The testimony of the victim’s family members concerning what the victim told them was similar to the victim’s testimony. There was also consistent testimony that the victim was very emotional and upset on the day that she told the others about the sexual assaults. Issue 4: Ineffective assistance of counsel Johnson argues that his counsel’s performance was ineffective for the failure to object to the State’s remarks at trial and the failure to request a limiting instruction. There is no reversible error existed in regard to the State’s remarks. Moreover, any inconsistencies in the statement were related to the second count, for which Johnson was not convicted. Accordingly, defense counsel’s performance was not ineffective as it did not affect the outcome of the trial. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
