Piercy v. State
| Docket Number: | 2002-KA-01362-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 07-22-2003 Opinion Author: Thomas, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Sexual battery - Sufficiency of evidence - Continuance - Closing argument Judge(s) Concurring: McMillin, C.J., King and Southwick, P.JJ., Bridges, Lee, Irving, Myers, Chandler and Griffis, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 07-22-2002 Appealed from: DeSoto County Circuit Court Judge: George B. Ready Disposition: SEXUAL BATTERY - SENTENCED TO TWENTY YEARS AND A FINE OF $1000 District Attorney: John W. Champion |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | James Donald Piercy |
WILLIAM F. TRAVIS |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: BILLY L. GORE |
|
|
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 - Sufficiency of evidence - Continuance - Closing argument |
| Summary of the Facts: | James Piercy was convicted of sexual battery and sentenced to twenty years. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Sufficiency of evidence Piercy argues that the State's witnesses failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he lacked the victim's consent at the time of the alleged incident. The jury is the judge of the weight and credibility of testimony given by each witness. The victim testified that Piercy acted without her consent and that she struggled with him, scratching and hitting him in order to try and get him to stop. In addition, pictures of Piercy with scratches on his face were introduced into evidence supporting the victim’s testimony. This evidence was sufficient for a reasonable and fair minded jury to find Piercy guilty of sexual battery. Issue 2: Continuance Piercy argues that the court erred in not granting a continuance of his trial based upon his appearance. According to Piercy, he was attacked by some inmates which left him swollen, blackened, scarred, and with a bloody left eye. The moving party has the burden of proving the court abused its discretion in denying the motion for continuance. Here, the court had an opportunity to view the defendant, consider his appearance, and to hear argument of counsel on the issue, and the denial of a continuance was not an abuse of discretion. Issue 3: Closing argument Piercy argues that the court erred in not granting a mistrial after the district attorney referred to him as a "predator" in his closing argument. Piercy failed to object until after the jury had returned with its verdict. By failing to make a contemporaneous objection, Piercy is procedurally barred from challenging the remarks. In addition, the comments were not prejudicial to the extent that a mistrial was warranted. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
