Minor v. State
| Docket Number: | 2003-KA-01819-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 11-02-2004 Opinion Author: Bridges, P.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Photographing a child and engaging in sexually explicit conduct - Exploitation statute - M.R.A.P. 28(a)(6) - Admissibility of evidence Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee, P.J., Irving, Myers, Chandler, Griffis, Barnes and Ishee, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 08-07-2003 Appealed from: Newton County Circuit Court Judge: Marcus D. Gordon Disposition: CONVICTED OF EXPLOITATION OF A CHILD AND SENTENCED TO TEN YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND TO PAY A FINE OF $25,000, WITH $22,500 SUSPENDED District Attorney: Mark Sheldon Duncan Case Number: 03-CR-018-NWG |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Undrea O. Minor |
EDMUND J. PHILLIPS, JR. |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: SCOTT STUART |
|
|
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: | Photographing a child and engaging in sexually explicit conduct - Exploitation statute - M.R.A.P. 28(a)(6) - Admissibility of evidence |
| Summary of the Facts: | Undrea Minor was convicted of willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously photographing a child under the age of eighteen years, engaging in sexually explicit conduct or in the simulation of sexually explicit conduct. He was sentenced to ten years. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Exploitation statute Minor argues that the exploitation statute, under which he was convicted, is inapplicable to the facts of this case, because the minor in this case was the actual procurer of the obscene photographs. M.R.A.P. 28(a)(6) requires an appellant’s brief to contain the contentions of appellant with respect to the issues presented, and the reasons for those contentions, with citations to the authorities, statutes, and parts of the record relied on. Since Minor fails to cite appropriate authority, this issue is procedurally barred. Issue 2: Admissibility of evidence Minor argues that the court erred in denying his attempts to introduce into evidence similarly provocative photographs of the minor taken by other individual(s) prior to those of Minor. Reversal is unwarranted here because the court properly denied Minor’s request to admit the additional photos into evidence. The photos are irrelevant, and thus prejudice Minor’s defense in no way, because Minor is not only implicated in the commission of the crime by his personal appearance in a picture with the minor, but also by the minor’s testimony. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
