Broderick v. State
| Docket Number: | 2002-KA-00558-COA Linked Case(s): 2002-CT-00558-SCT ; 2002-CT-00558-SCT ; 2002-CT-00558-SCT ; 2002-KA-00558-COA ; 2002-KA-00558-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 09-16-2003 Opinion Author: Bridges, J. Holding: Appellant's motion for rehearing denied. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Lustful touching of a child & Sexual battery - Severance - Jury instructions - Ineffective assistance of counsel Judge(s) Concurring: McMillin, C.J., King and Southwick, P.JJ., Thomas, Lee, Irving, Myers, Chandler and Griffis, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 03-29-2002 Appealed from: Lauderdale County Circuit Court Judge: Larry Eugene Roberts Disposition: COUNT II - LUSTFUL TOUCHING OF CHILD - SENTENCE OF 15 YEARS AND A FINE OF $1,000; COUNT III - LUSTFUL TOUCHING OF CHILD - SENTENCE OF 15 YEARS AND A FINE OF $1,000; COUNT IV - SEXUAL BATTERY - SENTENCE OF 15 YEARS; COUNT V - SEXUAL BATTERY- SENTENCE OF 15 YEARS ALL IN THE CUSTODY OF MDOC. COUNTS II AND IV SHALL RUN CONCURRENTLY TO EACH OTHER. COUNTS III AND COUNT V SHALL RUN CONCURRENTLY TO EACH OTHER. THE TIME IN COUNTS II AND IV SHALL RUN CONSECUTIVELY TO THE TIME IN COUNTS III AND V District Attorney: Bilbo Mitchell Case Number: 171-01 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | James Joseph Broderick |
JAMES A. WILLIAMS |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: JEFFREY A. KLINGFUSS |
|
|
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: | Lustful touching of a child & Sexual battery - Severance - Jury instructions - Ineffective assistance of counsel |
| Summary of the Facts: | James Broderick was convicted of two counts of lustful touching of a child and two counts of sexual battery. He was given four fifteen-year sentences along with two $1000 fines. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Severance Broderick argues that the charges against him should have been severed, because the jury was confused and misled by the jury instructions. In ruling on a motion for severance, the court should consider the time period between the offenses, whether the evidence that is used to prove each offense would be admissible to prove the other counts, and whether the offenses were interwoven. Because the court in this case properly held a hearing concerning the issue of severance and also made it known that the jury would be required to evaluate each count of the indictment individually, it did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion for severance. Issue 2: Jury instructions Broderick argues that the jury was not properly instructed, because the judge used the term "victim" when referring to the two girls. He also argues that there was error in instructions C-7, C-8, C-9, C-14, and C-15. However, he waived any objection to these instructions since he either failed to object or requested the instruction himself. Issue 3: Ineffective assistance of counsel Broderick argues that he was denied effective assistance of counsel, because there were failures with instructions, closing arguments, objections, and cross examination. To prove his claim, he must show his attorney’s conduct was deficient and prejudicial. Broderick's counsel filed motions before the trial began, he effectively cross-examined the State's witnesses, he made many objections throughout the trial and gave a coherent opening statement and a comprehensive closing argument, and he also filed post-trial motions. Therefore, he received effective assistance of counsel. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
