Lambert v. State
| Docket Number: | 2011-KA-00576-COA Linked Case(s): 2011-KA-00576-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 06-19-2012 Opinion Author: Griffis, P.J. Holding: Affirmed. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Touching child for lustful purposes - Admission of videotape - Tender years exception - M.R.E. 803(25) - Sufficiency of evidence - Section 97-5-23(1) Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Irving, P.J., Barnes, Ishee, Roberts, Carlton, Maxwell and Fair, JJ. Concur in Part, Concur in Result 1: Russell, 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: 03-21-2011 Appealed from: Lincoln County Circuit Court Judge: Michael M. Taylor Disposition: CONVICTED OF TOUCHING A CHILD FOR LUSTFUL PURPOSES AND SENTENCED TO FIFTEEN YEARS, WITH FIVE YEARS SUSPENDED AND TEN YEARS TO SERVE IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS District Attorney: Dee Bates Case Number: 10-225-LT |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Curtis C. Lambert a/k/a Curtis Craig Lambert |
GEORGE T. HOLMES
LESLIE S. LEE
GUS GRABLE SERMOS |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: STEPHANIE BRELAND WOOD |
|
|
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: | Touching child for lustful purposes - Admission of videotape - Tender years exception - M.R.E. 803(25) - Sufficiency of evidence - Section 97-5-23(1) |
| Summary of the Facts: | Curtis Lambert was convicted of touching a child for lustful purposes. He was sentenced to fifteen years, with five years suspended and ten years to serve. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Admission of videotape During trial, defense counsel objected to the admission of a videotape of the victim’s interview with a forensic interviewer for the Child Advocacy Center on the grounds of cumulative hearsay. The trial court overruled the objection pursuant to the tender-years exception under M.R.E. 803(25). There is a rebuttable presumption that a child under the age of twelve is of tender years. Once the circuit court determines that a child is of tender years, it must establish the reliability of the child’s statements. Lambert argues the tender-years exception was improperly applied because there was an insufficient showing of reliability. He argues the delay of the victim’s disclosure of the incident and the delay of her mother in reporting the incident both indicate a lack of reliability in the victim’s statements. The circuit court is not required to make point-by- point findings on the twelve reliability factors where there is sufficient evidence that the child’s statements possess substantial indicia of reliability. During the victim’s CAC interview, she was asked open-ended questions about the incident. She told the interviewer that Lambert had touched her “between [her] legs,” using anatomical dolls and drawings to point out the body part that she was referencing. The interviewer testified that based on her interaction with the victim, the victim’s behavior was consistent with that of a child who had been sexually abused. The interviewer also testified that it was common for sexually abused children to either not disclose the acts of the abuse or delay disclosure for a significant length of time. Based on these facts, there was sufficient evidence presented during trial to show substantial indicia of reliability in the victim’s statements during the CAC interview. Lambert also argues the videotape of the CAC interview constituted cumulative evidence since the victim testified at trial. While the videotape of the interview may have been cumulative in nature, the victim’s testimony, as well as the interviewer’s testimony, corroborated the contents of the interview on the videotape. Even if the videotape was excluded, the jury would have still heard the statements on the videotape from oral testimony. Therefore, any error in admitting cumulative evidence was harmless. Issue 2: Sufficiency of evidence Lambert argues that the State failed to prove the elements of gratification of lust under section 97-5-23(1). He argues that because the incident occurred in a small house full of people, and the victim testified that he did not touch himself, there is a lack of lustful intent. The unsupported word of the victim of a sex crime is sufficient to support a guilty verdict where that testimony is not discredited or contradicted by other credible evidence, especially if the conduct of the victim is consistent with the conduct of one who has been victimized by a sex crime. The jury is permitted to draw any reasonable inferences from all the evidence presented in the case. Here, the victim testified that Lambert put his hand down the back of her shorts and touched her private area “on [her] skin.” She testified that when she tried to get up, Lambert pulled her down and kept his hand on her private area. A reasonable jury could infer that the only purpose of Lambert touching the victim’s genitals was to satisfy his lustful desires. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
