Baker v. State
| Docket Number: | 2010-KA-01339-COA Linked Case(s): 2010-CT-01339-SCT ; 2010-KA-01339-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 01-24-2012 Opinion Author: Griffis, P.J. Holding: Affirmed. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Statutory rape - Defective indictment - Section 97-3-65 - Jury instruction Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Barnes, Ishee, Roberts, Carlton, Maxwell and Russell, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Fair, J. Concur in Part, Concur in Result 1: Irving, P.J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 02-13-2009 Appealed from: Lowndes County Circuit Court Judge: James T. Kitchens, Jr. Disposition: CONVICTED OF STATUTORY RAPE AND SENTENCED TO TWENTY-THREE YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS WITH FIVE YEARS OF POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION District Attorney: Forrest Allgood Case Number: 2008-101-CR1 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Kenneth Baker |
LESLIE S. LEE
HUNTER NOLAN AIKENS |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: JEFFREY A. KLINGFUSS |
|
|
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 - Defective indictment - Section 97-3-65 - Jury instruction |
| Summary of the Facts: | Kenneth Baker was convicted of statutory rape and sentenced to twenty-three years, with five years of post-release supervision. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Defective indictment Baker argues that the indictment was fatally defective because it failed to allege an essential element of statutory rape under section 97-3-65, i.e., failing to include the element stating the victim was not his spouse. The omission of the element that the victim was not Baker’s spouse was inconsequential because there was no evidence in the record to suggest that the victim was Baker’s spouse. Further, Baker testified that he was married to another person at the time of the alleged rape. The indictment gave Baker sufficient notice that he was being charged with statutory rape. Issue 2: Jury instruction Baker argues that an essential element of the crime was omitted from a jury instruction. Baker’s claim is procedurally barred because he failed to object specifically to the jury instruction. In addition, the claim is without merit because the jury instruction was sufficient. The instruction’s language, when read as a whole, tracked the language contained in the indictment. And the indictment clearly notified Baker that he was being charged with statutory rape. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
