Ladnier v. State


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2002-KA-01832-SCT
Linked Case(s): 2002-KA-01832-SCT

Supreme Court: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 06-03-2004
Opinion Author: Waller, P.J.
Holding: Affirmed

Additional Case Information: Topic: Touching a child for lustful purposes - Sufficiency of evidence - Lesser included offense instruction - Character testimony - M.R.E. 404
Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Cobb, P.J., Easley, Carlson, Graves, Dickinson and Randolph, JJ.
Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz, J.
Procedural History: Jury Trial
Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 11-01-2002
Appealed from: Hancock County Circuit Court
Judge: Kosta N. Vlahos
Disposition: Ladnier was convicted of one count of touching a child under the age of sixteen for lustful purposes and sentenced to three years.
District Attorney: Cono A. Caranna, II
Case Number: B2301-02-0057

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: Lionel F. Ladnier




JIM DAVIS



 

Appellee: State of Mississippi OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: JEAN SMITH VAUGHAN  

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: Touching a child for lustful purposes - Sufficiency of evidence - Lesser included offense instruction - Character testimony - M.R.E. 404

Summary of the Facts: Lionel Ladnier was convicted of one count of touching a child under the age of sixteen for lustful purposes and was sentenced to three years. He appeals.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Sufficiency of evidence Ladnier argues that there was no evidence that he touched the child for the purpose of indulging his depraved licentious sexual desire and that there was no testimony which corroborated that the touching was anything more than accidental. Pursuant to section 97-3-23, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was over the age of eighteen; the child was under the age of 16; and that the defendant touched the child with either his hands or another part of his body for the purpose of gratifying his lust. The evidence shows that Ladnier was over the age of eighteen and that the child was under the age of sixteen on the day of the incident. The child testified that Ladnier massaged her nipple while on the threewheeler the entire time they were riding. Ladnier's conduct was sufficient for the jury to reasonably infer that the touching was for purposes of satisfying his lustful desires. Although there were inconsistencies between the child's testimony and that of other witnesses, issues of witness credibility and the weight to be accorded a witness's testimony are matters to be resolved by the trier of fact. Issue 2: Lesser included offense instruction Ladnier asserts that it was error for the court to refuse his proffered instruction on the lesser included offense of simple assault. To be entitled to a lesser-included offense instruction, Ladnier must point to evidence in the record from which a jury could reasonably find him not guilty of the crime with which he was charged and at the same time find him guilty of the lesser included offense. A person is guilty of simple assault if he attempts to cause or purposely, knowingly or recklessly causes bodily injury to another; or negligently causes bodily injury to another with a deadly weapon or other means likely to produce death or serious bodily harm; or attempts by physical menace to put another in fear of imminent serious bodily harm. Here, there was no evidence to support a jury instruction on simple assault. There is nothing that indicates Ladnier attempted to cause bodily harm. Issue 3: Opinion testimony Ladnier argues that the court erred in excluding proffered testimony from his ex-wife, finding that it was inadmissible character evidence, that she gave only her personal opinion as to Ladnier's sexual morality, and she offered nothing as to his general reputation for sexual morality in the community. M.R.E. 404 allows a criminal defendant to put on evidence of his good character. The nature of the trait in question determines the time period about which the witness would testify, e.g., the time of trial for veracity, the time of the alleged incident for honesty or peacefulness. Here, the testimony regarding Ladnier's reputation for sexual morality was properly excluded because the testimony was based on incidents which had occurred approximately nine years prior to the date of the incident.


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