Ratliff v. State
| Docket Number: | 2002-KA-01575-COA Linked Case(s): 2002-CT-01575-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 12-07-2004 Opinion Author: Irving, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Sexual battery - Hearsay - M.R.E. 801(c) - Sufficiency of evidence - Ineffective assistance of counsel Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Bridges and Lee, P.JJ., Myers, Chandler, Griffis, Barnes and Ishee, JJ. Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 07-25-2002 Appealed from: Hinds County Circuit Court Judge: W. Swan Yerger Disposition: DEFENDANT WAS CONVICTED OF TWO COUNTS OF SEXUAL BATTERY OF A CHILD, AND SENTENCED TO TWO CONCURRENT TERMS OF 25 YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MDOC. District Attorney: Eleanor Faye Peterson Case Number: 01-800CRY |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Anthony Ratliff |
THOMAS M. FORTNER
LYNN WATKINS |
||
| 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: | Sexual battery - Hearsay - M.R.E. 801(c) - Sufficiency of evidence - Ineffective assistance of counsel |
| Summary of the Facts: | Anthony Ratliff was convicted of two counts of sexual battery of a child. He was sentenced to twenty-five years on each count. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Hearsay Ratliff argues that the court erred in admitting the hearsay testimony of the emergency room nurse who attended the victim, a social worker who interviewed the victim at the hospital’s emergency room, a teacher at the victim’s school, the school’s principal, the school’s office manager, the victim’s mother; and Jackson Public School’s security coordinator. Ratliff’s failure to object to three of the witnesses’ testimony at trial constitutes a procedural bar. With regard to the testimony of the emergency room nurse, Ratliff’s argument is procedurally barred because he did not object at trial on the same grounds he is arguing on appeal. With regard to the teacher’s testimony, his arguments are procedurally barred and without merit since none of Ratliff's fundamental rights were violated. With regard to the school principal’s testimony, the statements were not hearsay under M.R.E. 801(c) since they were not offered to prove the truth of the matter, that Ratliff had actually called the victim’s house, but were offered to explain the principal’s actions during the course of his investigation of the incident. With regard to the security coordinator’s testimony, assuming without deciding that this witness gave some testimony that was inappropriate, there was no miscarriage of justice nor an infringement on Ratliff’s fundamental rights. Issue 2: Sufficiency of evidence Ratliff argues that the evidence was insufficient. Ample evidence was offered by the State in support of Ratliff’s conviction. The victim testified in great detail about her sexual encounter with Ratliff. The evidence presented to the jury included not only the testimony of the victim, but the testimony of several witnesses who corroborated the victim’s testimony. Further, the detective in charge of investigating the crime substantiated the victim’s allegations by validating her description of the motel room where Ratliff took her. Issue 3: Ineffective assistance of counsel Ratliff argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel, because his attorney failed to conduct discovery and, on numerous occasions, failed to object to the admission of hearsay or irrelevant testimony. Ratliff has failed to demonstrate the likelihood of a different outcome had counsel performed in a different manner; therefore, Ratliff’s argument on this issue fails. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
