Seigfried v. State
| Docket Number: | 2002-KA-01488-COA Linked Case(s): 2002-CT-01488-SCT ; 2002-KA-01488-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 10-21-2003 Opinion Author: Lee, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Sexual battery - Weight of evidence - Defense theory instruction - Lesser-included offense instruction - Admission of receipt - Authentication - M.R.E. 901(a) Judge(s) Concurring: McMillin, C.J., King and Southwick, P.JJ., Bridges, Thomas, Irving, Myers, Chandler and Griffis, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 08-07-2002 Appealed from: Harrison County Circuit Court Judge: Robert H. Walker Disposition: APPELLANT CONVICTED OF SEXUAL BATTERY WITHOUT CONSENT AND SENTENCED TO TWENTY YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS. District Attorney: Cono A. Caranna, II Case Number: B-2402-2001-00287 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Frank Adam Seigfried |
JIM DAVIS |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: JOHN R. HENRY |
|
|
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 - Weight of evidence - Defense theory instruction - Lesser-included offense instruction - Admission of receipt - Authentication - M.R.E. 901(a) |
| Summary of the Facts: | Frank Seigfried was convicted of sexual battery without consent and sentenced to twenty years. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Weight of evidence Seigfried argues that the verdict was against the overwhelming weight of the evidence, because the State failed to prove that the victim failed to consent. Whether or not the victim consented is for the jury to determine based on evidence presented to it. The jury was told how the victim cried after the fact, how he felt intimidated into submission, and how he was under the influence of alcohol during the episode. The jury was able to view this evidence and the demeanor of the witnesses in determining whether the victim's actions constituted consent. Issue 2: Jury instructions Seigfried argues that the court erred in refusing certain of his requested jury instructions and in granting one of the State's instructions which misstated the law. With regard to the first instruction, Seigfried argues that the judge effectively took away his ability to defend himself since this instruction reflected the major theory of his case, that the victim consented. As long as the instructions fairly announce the law, duplicate instructions on the same point are not required. The issue of consent was covered in another instruction. Seigfried also argues that the court erred in refusing his instruction on the lesser-included offense of assault. A lesser-included offense instruction if proper if the more serious offense includes all the elements of the lesser offense, that is, it is impossible to commit the greater offense without at the same time committing the lesser included offense, and there is some evidence to support the lesser included offense. In this case, no bodily injury was shown nor was any other evidence submitted to support the jury's finding of simple assault rather than sexual battery. Issue 3: Admission of receipt Seigfried argues that the court erred in allowing the State to introduce into evidence a receipt from a video store where he allegedly rented three videotapes which included two pornographic movies, because the receipt was not properly authenticated. M.R.E. 901(a) provides that the requirement of authentication as a condition precedent to admissibility is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims. Here, the officer testified that he obtained the receipt after presenting a properly executed subpoena duces tecum from the justice court. Therefore, the judge did not abuse his discretion in admitting the evidence. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
