Moses v. State
| Docket Number: | 2003-KA-00547-COA Linked Case(s): 2003-KA-00547-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 09-14-2004 Opinion Author: Irving, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Statutory rape, Sexual battery, & Fondling - Double jeopardy - Amendment of indictment - Prior bad acts - Sufficiency of evidence Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Bridges and Lee, P.JJ., Myers, Chandler, Griffis and Barnes, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 01-09-2003 Appealed from: Marion County Circuit Court Judge: Michael R. Eubanks Disposition: COUNTS TWO, THREE, FOUR, FIVE AND SIX: STATUTORY RAPE, SENTENCED TO CONCURRENT LIFE SENTENCES ON EACH COUNT IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MDOC; COUNT SEVEN: SEXUAL BATTERY, SENTENCED TO TWENTY YEARS WITH TEN YEARS SUSPENDED AND FIVE YEARS OF POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION, WITH THE SENTENCE FOR COUNT SEVEN RUNNING CONSECUTIVELY TO THE SENTENCES FOR COUNTS TWO, THREE, FOUR, FIVE, AND SIX; COUNTS EIGHT, NINE AND ELEVEN: FONDLING, SENTENCED TO TEN YEARS WITH EIGHT YEARS SUSPENDED AND FIVE YEARS POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION ON EACH COUNT TO RUN CONCURRENTLY TO EACH OTHER BUT CONSECUTIVELY TO THE SENTENCE IN COUNT SEVEN. District Attorney: Claiborne McDonald Case Number: K01-0367E |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Willie Walter Moses |
MORRIS SWEATT |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: DEIRDRE MCCRORY |
|
|
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, Sexual battery, & Fondling - Double jeopardy - Amendment of indictment - Prior bad acts - Sufficiency of evidence |
| Summary of the Facts: | Willie Moses was convicted of five counts of statutory rape, one count of sexual battery, and three counts of fondling. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Double jeopardy Moses argues that the charges in the new indictment were barred by the doctrine of double jeopardy because the same factual allegations in the new indictment had been disposed of in the previous indictment. In an earlier case, the Court of Appeals reversed and rendered those counts comprising incidents which occurred after Child A had reached her fourteenth birthday. For purposes of double jeopardy consideration, the facts undergirding the charges in the current indictment must be looked at to determine whether any of the factual bases for these charges provided the factual bases for any of the charges in the former case which the trial judge granted a directed verdict on and for any of the charges which the Court of Appeals reversed and rendered. The record shows that the factual bases supporting the charges in the current indictment are totally different from the factual bases undergirding the charges in the earlier case which were either disposed of by directed verdict granted by the trial judge or reversed and rendered by the Court of Appeals. Therefore, the judge did not err in refusing to quash the indictment on the basis of double jeopardy. Issue 2: Amendment of indictment Moses argues that the indictment was fatally flawed since it did not contain the requisite statutory language “against the peace and dignity of the State” and that the court erred in allowing the State to amend the indictment. The failure of an indictment to conclude with those words is a formal defect that is curable by amendment. Therefore, the judge properly allowed the State to amend the indictment. Issue 3: Prior bad acts Moses argues that the court erred in denying his motion for a mistrial when the State allegedly elicited testimony of other prior bad acts. The judge is provided considerable discretion in determining whether a remark is so prejudicial that a mistrial should be declared. If serious and irreparable damage has not occurred, then the judge should direct the jury to disregard the remark. Here, the judge did not abuse his discretion in denying Moses's request for a mistrial. In addition, Moses's attorney declined the judge's attempt to cure any potential prejudice emanating from the remark. Issue 4: Sufficiency of evidence Moses argues that the evidence was insufficient. The State offered ample evidence in support of Moses's conviction. The victims testified in great detail that Moses engaged in various sexual acts with them. The evidence further showed that when Moses was arrested, police found certain items in his home that corroborated the victims’ allegations. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
