Goss v. State, 53432
| Decision Date | 19 May 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 53432,53432 |
| Citation | 413 So.2d 1033 |
| Parties | Danny GOSS v. STATE of Mississippi. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
William Sebastian Moore, Hugh W. Tedder, Jr., Jackson, for appellant.
Bill Allain, Atty. Gen. by Amy D. Whitten, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.
Before PATTERSON, C. J., and BROOM and DARDEN, JJ.
DARDEN, Justice, for the Court:
Danny Goss was convicted on a charge of rape in the Circuit Court of Lauderdale County. The jury could not agree on a sentence and he was sentenced thereafter by the trial judge to a term of twenty-five years in the Mississippi Department of Corrections. We affirm.
This case involves the question of the identity of the person who committed the offense. There is no question that the proof shows that the prosecutrix was forcibly ravished as a result of being put in fear of immediate bodily harm to herself and to her children, who were asleep in her apartment at the time the incident occurred. The defense is that the defendant is not the person who committed the assault. He undertook to establish an alibi for the time when the incident occurred.
The prosecutrix testified that she knew the defendant; that he came into her apartment without permission and that she saw him at the time that he entered. He put his hand over her eyes and mouth as he entered and shoved her onto the couch. In the course of the assault he covered her face with a shirt, which at one time slipped down permitting her again to see him, and later when he removed his shirt from her face he covered her face with a cushion and instructed her not to move. During all of this time he was threatening her and her children with bodily harm in the event that she made any noise or resisted him.
The prosecutrix specifically identified the defendant as being the person who committed the assault upon her. She described his clothing as being a brown velour shirt, blue jeans and brown zip-up boots. She specifically stated that he zipped up the boots after he had committed the offense. The two detectives who investigated the matter on the day after the assault occurred testified that they interviewed Debbie Switzer, who was Danny Goss' sister and that she told them that on the night in question Danny was wearing a brown velour shirt, blue jeans and zip-up boots. She denied having said so to them but their testimony is positive in this respect. This is the only corroboration of prosecutrix's identification of defendant.
The victim called her friend and her fiance as soon as her assailant left and she was able to lock the door and be assured that he was not any longer in the area. The police were notified by the fiance on his arrival at the apartment. She was examined by a physician within about two hours after the assault occurred and he established the fact that she had motile semen in the vagina. She named the defendant as the person who had committed the assault upon her on the night that it occurred and she identified his picture from a group of pictures that were presented to her by police officers in the early morning hours of that day.
During the course of the trial the defendant undertook to put two witnesses on the stand, both of whom had been in the courtroom for a period of time during certain of the testimony of other witnesses. The rule as to the sequestration of the witnesses had been invoked and the court on the objection of the state refused to permit either of the two proffered witnesses to testify. Their testimony was taken outside the hearing of the jury and is a matter of record.
On appeal the defendant assigns three errors as a basis for the requested reversal of the case. The first is that the court incorrectly instructed the jury as to the weight to be given the uncorroborated testimony of the prosecutrix and how to view such testimony.
As a part of the court's instruction the jury was told: "You are required and expected to use your good common sense and sound, honest judgment in considering and weighing the testimony of each witness who has testified in this case." No objection was made to any portion of the court's instruction which included the above direction to the jury as is required by section 3.09 of the Uniform Circuit Court Rules. Therefore, we will not consider any objection to that instruction on appeal. Mississippi Supreme Court Rule 42; DePriest v. State, 377 So.2d 615 (Miss.1979).
The defendant correctly states the rule of law which has been repeatedly announced by this Court that the uncorroborated testimony of a prosecutrix in a rape case should be examined closely and scrutinized with caution. See for example Killingsworth v. State, 374 So.2d 221 (Miss.1979). Defendant now says that the court should have told the jury that they should scrutinize the prosecutrix's statement with extreme caution in accordance with that rule. No instruction announcing such a rule was requested by the defendant in the lower court. Assuming for the purpose of our consideration here that the testimony of the prosecutrix was without corroboration in any respect it would still have been improper for the court to have instructed the jury in regard to the weight to be given such testimony for the reason that Mississippi Code Annotated section 99-17-35 (1972) prohibits a judge from commenting upon the weight of the evidence and we have held that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Robinson v. State
...of defense instruction cautioning jurors against giving undue credence to the testimony of law enforcement officials); Goss v. State , 413 So.2d 1033, 1035 (Miss. 1982) (affirming denial of defense instruction stating that the uncorroborated testimony of the victim of a sex crime should be ......
-
Ben v. State
...injuries to Monica. Finally, any inconsistencies in Monica's trial testimony were issues for the jury to resolve. Goss v. State, 413 So.2d 1033, 1035 (Miss.1982). ¶ 56. We find that there was sufficient evidence for a rational trier of fact to find Ben guilty of forcible rape and that allow......
-
Harper v. State
...261 So.2d 460 (Miss.1972); Proctor v. State, 267 So.2d 99 (Miss.1972); Lumpkin v. State, 413 So.2d 386 (Miss.1982); Goss v. State, 413 So.2d 1033 (Miss.1982); Ross Cattle Co. v. Lewis, 415 So.2d 1029, 1035 (Miss.1982); Smith v. State, 434 So.2d 212 (Miss.1983); Shelton v. State, 445 So.2d 8......
-
Pitts v. State
...Robinson v. State , 247 So. 3d 1212, 1223 (Miss. 2018) ; see Hansen v. State , 592 So. 2d 114, 141 (Miss. 1991) ; Goss v. State , 413 So. 2d 1033, 1035 (Miss. 1982) ; Hines v. State , 339 So. 2d 56, 58 (Miss. 1976). Jury instruction S-6 is such a strong and direct statement by the trial jud......