Hawkins v. State
| Docket Number: | 2010-KA-00136-COA Linked Case(s): 2010-KA-00136-COA ; 2010-CT-00136-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 01-31-2012 Opinion Author: Barnes, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Sexual battery & Touching child for lustful purposes - Venue - M.R.E. 201(b) - Exclusion of evidence - M.R.E. 402 - M.R.E. 608(b) - Letter by victim - Closing argument Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Irving and Griffis, P.JJ., Ishee, Roberts, Carlton, Maxwell, Russell and Fair, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 12-09-2009 Appealed from: Leflore County Circuit Court Judge: Richard Smith Disposition: CONVICTED OF COUNTS I-IV, TOUCHING A CHILD FOR LUSTFUL PURPOSES, AND SENTENCED TO TWO YEAR S ON EACH COUNT, AND COUNT V, SEXUAL BATTERY, AND SENTENCED TO TWENTY YEARS, WITH THE SENTENCES TO RUN CONSECUTIVELY, ALL IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS WITHOUT BENEFIT OF PAROLE District Attorney: Willie Dewayne Richardson Case Number: 2009-0068-CICR |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | David Hawkins |
W. DANIEL HINCHCLIFF
LESLIE S. LEE |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: LISA LYNN BLOUNT |
|
|
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 & Touching child for lustful purposes - Venue - M.R.E. 201(b) - Exclusion of evidence - M.R.E. 402 - M.R.E. 608(b) - Letter by victim - Closing argument |
| Summary of the Facts: | David Hawkins was convicted of sexual battery and four counts of touching a child for lustful purposes. He was sentenced to five terms of imprisonment, totaling twenty-eight years, all to be served consecutively without the benefit of parole. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Venue Hawkins argues that the State offered insufficient evidence of venue. The State actually presented significant evidence of venue before reopening its case. Witnesses repeatedly stated that the crimes had occurred in “Greenwood, Mississippi.” A court may take judicial notice that a city is in a particular county. Additionally, in the “Greenwood” in which the crimes occurred, two streets (including Leflore Avenue), two churches, a school, and the Greenwood Police Department were mentioned by name during the trial. Pursuant to M.R.E. 201(b), a court can take judicial notice that a landmark such a street, school, or other institution is in a particular city, if this fact is common knowledge in the area where the trial is held. Considering all of this evidence, the jury could have concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that the crimes occurred in Leflore County, as venue may be proven by circumstantial evidence. Issue 2: Exclusion of evidence At the beginning of his case-in-chief, Hawkins offered into evidence a letter the victim had written to her parents. He contended the letter was an admission that she had fabricated the allegations against him. There was no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s exclusion of the letter as irrelevant. Under M.R.E. 402, evidence that is irrelevant is not admissible. Other than the assertions of his attorney, which are not evidence, Hawkins offered nothing to support his contention that the letter was a recantation of the sexual-abuse allegations. On appeal, Hawkins presents a different argument than he did before the trial court. He argues that the letter was evidence of the victim’s general propensity not to tell the truth. It is true that M.R.E. 608(b) provides the trial court discretion to allow a party to cross-examine a witness on specific instances of her past conduct, for the purpose of attacking her general disposition for truthfulness. However, the flaw in Hawkins’s argument is obvious: the letter is extrinsic evidence of the victim’s conduct and extrinsic evidence may not be used to attack a witness’s character for truthfulness. Issue 3: Closing argument Hawkins argues the State improperly remarked in its opening and closing statements that his was a “classic case” of child molestation. Hawkins offered no contemporaneous objection to any of the statements. Failure to object waives the issue on appeal. In addition, in each of the three instances where the prosecutor referred to Hawkins’s crimes as a “classic case,” he was urging the jury to draw conclusions based on the evidence. The arguments were harmless and incapable of creating jury bias or prejudice. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
