Wright v. State
| Docket Number: | 2010-KA-01763-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 06-19-2012 Opinion Author: Lee, C.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Statutory rape & Sexual battery - Exclusion of expert witness - URCCC 9.04(C)(1) - Discovery violation Judge(s) Concurring: Barnes, Ishee, Roberts, Maxwell, Russell and Fair, JJ. Dissenting Author : Carlton, J. Dissent Joined By : Irving and Griffis, P.JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 07-27-2010 Appealed from: Coahoma County Circuit Court Judge: Charles E. Webster Disposition: CONVICTED OF COUNT I, STATUTORY RAPE, AND COUNT II, SEXUAL BATTERY, AND SENTENCED TO FIFTEEN YEARS ON EACH COUNT IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, WITH THE SENTENCES TO RUN CONCURRENTLY District Attorney: Brenda Fay Mitchell |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Marco Wright |
JOE MORGAN WILSON |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: LAURA HOGAN TEDDER |
|
|
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: | Statutory rape & Sexual battery - Exclusion of expert witness - URCCC 9.04(C)(1) - Discovery violation |
| Summary of the Facts: | Marco Wright was convicted of statutory rape and sexual battery. He was sentenced to fifteen years on each count. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Wright argues the trial court erred in allowing the State’s medical witnesses to testify while excluding his proposed medical witness. A defendant has the constitutional right to call witnesses in his favor. A defendant must also meet certain discovery requirements regarding the testimony of witnesses. If the trial court determines that a defendant’s discovery violation is willful and motivated by a desire to obtain a tactical advantage, the witness may be excluded from testifying. In this case, the trial court found Wright knew the DNA evidence was relevant as early as December 2009. Furthermore, Wright failed to follow the dictates of URCCC 9.04(C)(1). Thus, this issue is without merit. In addition, expert testimony must be based upon credible evidence in the case. According to the record there was no credible testimony to support Wright’s theory that the victim was wearing her mother’s underwear. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
