Fountain v. State
| Docket Number: | 2010-KA-01038-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 04-10-2012 Opinion Author: Ishee, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Sexual battery - Prior misconduct - M.R.E. 404(b) - M.R.E. 403 - Exclusion of false allegations - M.R.E. 412(b)(2)(c) - Jury instructions - Sufficiency of evidence Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Griffis, P.J., Barnes, Roberts, Carlton, Maxwell, Russell and Fair, JJ. Concur in Part, Concur in Result 1: Irving, P.J., concurs in part and in the result without separate written opinion Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 05-27-2010 Appealed from: Jackson County Circuit Court Judge: Dale Harkey Disposition: CONVICTED OF FOUR COUNTS OF SEXUAL BATTERY AND SENTENCED TO THIRTY YEARS FOR EACH COUNT WITH THE SENTENCES TO RUN CONCURRENTLY ALL IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS WITHOUT ELIGIBILITY FOR PAROLE OR PROBATION AND TO PAY A $10,000 FINE FOR EACH COUNT District Attorney: Anthony N. Lawrence, III Case Number: 2008-10,975 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Michael Anthony Fountain |
CLARE SEKUL HORNSBY
CALVIN D. TAYLOR
STEVEN BENJAMIN DICK |
||
| 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 - Prior misconduct - M.R.E. 404(b) - M.R.E. 403 - Exclusion of false allegations - M.R.E. 412(b)(2)(c) - Jury instructions - Sufficiency of evidence |
| Summary of the Facts: | Michael Fountain was convicted of four counts of sexual battery and was sentenced to thirty years for each count with the sentences to run concurrently, without eligibility for parole or probation and fined $10,000 for each count. Fountain appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Prior misconduct Fountain argues that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting the testimony of a witness in which she spoke about Fountain’s prior sexual abuse. In her testimony, she alleged Fountain began to sexually abuse her when she was in the fifth grade, and the sexual acts continued until adulthood, at which point the relationship became consensual. This type of evidence is only admissible if properly admitted under M.R.E. 404(b), filtered through M.R.E. 403, and accompanied by an appropriately-drafted limiting or cautionary instruction to the jury. In this case, the evidence was properly admitted under Rule 404(b). The testimony could be used to show proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident. There are several similarities between the two allegations of abuse: both victims were the same age when the abuse took place; Fountain gave both of the victims gifts and money; and several of the sexual acts were the same. The abuse of the victim in this case also began around the same time the witness left for college. Furthermore, Fountain used his abuse of the witness to groom the victim as part of his general preparation or plan. The necessity of this type of evidence in cases involving sex crimes against children establishes their probative value. Fountain also argues the allegations in the witness’s testimony were too remote in time to be relevant to the current case. The abuse alleged by the witness occurred between sixteen and seventeen years prior to the trial in the instant case. Based on the age of the witness and the victim when the abuse occurred, the timing of the abuse of the victim in relation to the witness leaving for college, and the overwhelming amount of case law, the testimony was not too remote in time to be relevant. Fountain also argues that the testimony violated his right to a fair trial. Not only does Fountain fail to cite any legal authority in his argument relating to his right to a fair trial, but the testimony was properly admitted and did not violate Fountain’s right to a fair trial. Issue 2: Exclusion of false allegations Prior to trial, the State filed a motion in limine seeking to exclude the introduction of evidence regarding the victim’s past allegations of sexual assault against persons other than Fountain. Fountain sought to introduce this evidence under M.R.E. 412(b)(2)(c) as a false allegation by the victim of a past sexual offense. The State moved to exclude the evidence under Rule 412(c). Fountain admittedly did not comply with the fifteen-day notice requirement of Rule 412(c). In addition, the exclusion of the testimony did not prejudice or harm Fountain’s theory of defense. The jury returned a guilty verdict despite hearing other evidence of the victim’s prior allegations of abuse. Issue 3: Jury instructions Fountain argues the trial court committed plain error in two of the jury instructions given. Fountain did not object to either instruction during the trial. Regarding his argument that the trial court erred in its response to a question by the jury, the trial court’s instruction did not affect Fountain’s fundamental rights and, thus, does not constitute a manifest miscarriage of justice. The importance of the response was to inform the jury it would not be provided with a transcript of the victim’s testimony. Regarding his argument that a jury instruction presumed an act of sexual battery had occurred by introducing the defense of consent, a defense Fountain did not present at trial, the instruction was reasonable in light of the evidence in this case. Issue 4: Sufficiency of evidence Fountain argues that the evidence presented was insufficient to support the conviction. The State provided ample evidence of sexual battery. The jury heard testimony from the victim detailing her sexual abuse at the hands of Fountain, including penetration. The jury also heard the testimony of an investigator, who stated that the victim knew where certain items would be located in Fountain’s home. Those items included vibrators and nude photographs. In addition, another witness testified to her prior sexual abuse by Fountain, thus establishing a motive to commit the crime. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
