Lindsey v. State

Decision Date26 January 2017
Docket NumberNO. 2015–KA–01417–SCT,2015–KA–01417–SCT
Citation212 So.3d 44
Parties Howard LINDSEY v. STATE of Mississippi
CourtMississippi Supreme Court

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: MERRIDA COXWELL

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: SCOTT STUART

BEFORE WALLER, C.J., KITCHENS AND COLEMAN, JJ.

WALLER, CHIEF JUSTICE, FOR THE COURT:

¶1. On July 23, 2015, a Covington County jury found Howard Lindsey guilty of two counts of gratification of lust and two counts of sexual battery. On appeal, Lindsey argues that the jury's verdict is contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence. Finding no issue with the verdict, we affirm Lindsey's convictions and sentences.

FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2. This case involves a total of four alleged sexual offenses committed by Howard Lindsey against two minor female victims. On January 13, 2015, Lindsey was indicted for one count of gratification of lust and one count of sexual battery against his granddaughter M.L., as well as one count of gratification of lust and one count of sexual battery against M.L.'s cousin T.P.1 The alleged offenses against M.L. occurred "during and about 2013 through and about 2014," and the alleged offenses against T.P. occurred "during and about December 2013." At the time of these offenses, M.L. was between eleven and twelve years old, and T.P. was fourteen years old.

¶3. Lindsey's trial commenced on July 22, 2015. M.L. and T.P. were the State's only witnesses. By the time of trial, M.L. was thirteen years old, and T.P. was fifteen years old. Lindsey called three witnesses in his defense: M.L.'s older brother Antiquez Lindsey, M.L.'s uncle Sedrick Lindsey, and M.L.'s cousin Sedrianna Lindsey. At the conclusion of trial, the jury returned a verdict finding Lindsey guilty on all counts. After the trial court denied his post-trial motions, Lindsey filed a timely notice of appeal with this Court. Lindsey's sole issue on appeal is whether the jury's verdict is against the overwhelming weight of the evidence.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶4. "When reviewing a denial of a motion for a new trial based on an objection to the weight of the evidence, we will only disturb a verdict when it is so contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence that to allow it to stand would sanction an unconscionable injustice." Bush v. State , 895 So.2d 836, 844 (Miss. 2005) (citation omitted). The evidence must be weighed in the light most favorable to the jury's verdict. Id. If the verdict is against the overwhelming weight of the evidence, the proper remedy is to grant a new trial, but this remedy should be used only in exceptional cases where the evidence "preponderates heavily against the verdict." Id. (citing McQueen v. State , 423 So.2d 800, 803 (Miss. 1982) ).

DISCUSSION

¶5. Lindsey was charged with two counts of gratification of lust and two counts of sexual battery. To find Lindsey guilty of gratification of lust, the jury was required to find (1) that Lindsey touched M.L. and T.P. with any part of his body or with any object "for the purpose of gratifying his ... lust or indulging in his ... depraved licentious sexual desires," (2) that Lindsey was above the age of eighteen, and (3) that M.L. and T.P. were under the age of sixteen. Miss. Code Ann. § 97–5–23(1) (Rev. 2014). To find Lindsey guilty of sexual battery, the jury was required to find (1) that Lindsey engaged in sexual penetration with M.L. and T.P., (2) that Lindsey was at least thirty-six months older than T.P., and (3) that he was at least twenty-four months older than M.L. Miss. Code Ann. § 97–3–95(1)(c), (d) (Rev. 2014). The State relied on the testimonies of M.L. and T.P. to prove the elements of these crimes.

¶6. At trial, M.L. testified that Lindsey had molested her on several occasions, but she was unsure when this abuse began or how many times it had occurred. However, she was able to describe at least two particular incidents of abuse. She testified that, while she was living in Hattiesburg with her mother, Lindsey touched her breast with his hand. She also stated that Lindsey had touched her vagina and breasts with his hands and mouth, put his penis in her vagina, and put his mouth on her vagina.

¶7. The second incident occurred at Lindsey's house near Seminary. At this point, M.L. was twelve years old and was living in Collins. Lindsey asked M.L.'s mother if M.L. could go to a football game with him. M.L. did not want to go by herself, so she asked her cousin Sedrianna to go with her. Sedrianna and her father Sedrick, who is Lindsey's son, live next door to Lindsey. M.L. testified that she waited at Lindsey's house while Sedrianna got ready. At some point, Lindsey put his mouth on M.L.'s vagina. He then put his penis in her vagina and put his mouth on her breasts. M.L. said she was alone in the house with Lindsey at this time. Lindsey told M.L. not to tell anyone about what had happened. M.L. also testified that Lindsey offered her money and a cell phone if she did not tell anyone about these incidents.

¶8. M.L. testified that she did not tell anyone about Lindsey's abuse because she was afraid that Lindsey would stop providing financial support to her mother. She finally decided to say something when her aunt asked her why she was afraid to visit Lindsey's house one night.

¶9. M.L. also testified about an occasion when Lindsey had molested T.P. In December 2013, T.P. visited M.L.'s family on two occasions. On the first occasion, Lindsey took the girls to Hattiesburg to go shopping. During this trip, M.L. testified that Lindsey asked her to "hook him and [T.P.] up." On the second occasion, M.L. and T.P. went to Lindsey's house and hung out in the "club" behind his house. M.L. and T.P. both described the "club" as a shed with a pool table and kitchen. M.L. had Lindsey's cell phone at this time. The cell phone rang, so M.L. asked T.P. to bring it to Lindsey. T.P. was gone for a long time, so M.L. went to check on her. Inside the house, M.L. testified that she saw Lindsey and T.P. in Lindsey's bedroom, and Lindsey was putting his penis in T.P.'s vagina. M.L. and T.P. never talked to each other about this incident.

¶10. T.P. also testified that she had visited M.L. twice in December 2013. She stated that during the first trip, Lindsey tried to persuade her to have sex with him, but she refused. On the second visit, T.P. and M.L. were playing in the "club" behind Lindsey's house when Lindsey's phone rang. T.P. took the phone to Lindsey in his bedroom. Lindsey pulled her into the room, locked the door and tried to have sex with her. He put his hand over her mouth to stop her from screaming. He then put his penis in T.P.'s vagina. T.P. also testified that Lindsey touched her breasts. T.P. stated that she was unsure of Lindsey's exact age but that she knew he was over the age of twenty-one at the time of this incident. T.P. said she did not tell anyone about what had happened because she was afraid that her father would try to kill Lindsey and would be sent to prison.

¶11. Lindsey called three witnesses in his defense. The defense witnesses' testimonies focused on M.L.'s allegations, particularly the incident before the football game. None of the defense witnesses testified specifically about T.P.'s allegations. M.L.'s older brother Antiquez2 testified that he could not remember an occasion on which Lindsey was alone with M.L. He stated that either he or his mother always were home when Lindsey came to visit. Antiquez testified that he and M.L. were visiting Lindsey's house one night when M.L. said she was scared to sleep by herself, so they decided to go home. He said he did not know why M.L. was scared and that it was her idea to visit Lindsey. On cross-examination, Antiquez admitted that he was not always around when Lindsey and M.L. were together. He also stated that he and his mother are disabled and that Lindsey gives his mother financial support. He gave the following explanation for his belief that M.L.'s allegations against Lindsey were fabricated: "[Y]ou don't have to always be there. I mean, if you—I mean, now days girls grow up different. So a girl is going to do whatever she can or say just to get her way."

¶12. Lindsey's son Sedrick also testified for the defense. Sedrick provided his recollection of events on the night that Lindsey took M.L. and his daughter to a football game. Sedrick testified that M.L. came over to his house to ask his daughter Sedrianna if she wanted to go to the game with her. While Sedrianna was getting ready, M.L. was constantly walking in and out of the house. After Sedrianna got ready, Lindsey came over and picked them up to go to the game. On cross-examination, Sedrick admitted that he was unemployed and that Lindsey gave him money when he needed it. Sedrick admitted that he did not know what M.L. was doing when she was not at his house.

¶13. Sedrianna Lindsey testified briefly for the defense and generally corroborated her father's testimony. Sedrianna was fourteen years old at the time of trial. She said that M.L. came over to her house and asked her if she wanted to go to the football game, and she said yes. M.L. repeatedly left Sedrianna's room and then returned while Sedrianna was getting ready. After Sedrianna got ready, Lindsey picked up her and M.L. from her house to go to the game.

¶14. On appeal, Lindsey first argues that a new trial is warranted because the State failed to present any physical evidence or other testimony corroborating the testimony of the victims. He also repeatedly points out that no medical evidence of sexual abuse exists in this case. But this argument is easily dismissed. "Our case law clearly holds that 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." Scott v. State , 728 So.2d 584, 586 (Miss. 1998). See also Allman v. State , 571 So.2d 244, 250 (Miss. 1990) (finding that the trial court properly refused defendant's proposed jury...

To continue reading

Request your trial
39 cases
  • Ford v. State
    • United States
    • Mississippi Court of Appeals
    • February 15, 2022
    ...weight of the evidence that to allow it to stand would sanction an unconscionable injustice." Id. at 291 (¶21) (quoting Lindsey v. State , 212 So. 3d 44, 45 (¶4) (Miss. 2017).¶64. As discussed above, the jury was presented with sufficient evidence to convict Ford of first-degree murder. The......
  • Eubanks v. State
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • June 16, 2022
    ...evidence that to allow it to stand would sanction an unconscionable injustice.’ " Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Lindsey v. State , 212 So. 3d 44, 45 (Miss. 2017) ).¶53. Eubanks argues that "[t]he jury was influenced by an inadequate investigation and misleading testimonies which has......
  • Terrell v. State
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • January 4, 2018
    ...would sanction an unconscionable injustice.’ " Little v. State , 2014–CT–01505–SCT, 2017 WL 4546740, at *4 (quoting Lindsey v. State , 212 So.3d 44, 45 (Miss. 2017) ). ¶ 69. Our review shows no such injustice. The evidence Terrell claims preponderates so heavily against his verdict is Nicho......
  • Turner v. State
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • June 17, 2021
    ...that to allow it to stand would sanction an unconscionable injustice’ " (second alteration in original) (quoting Lindsey v. State , 212 So. 3d 44, 45 (Miss. 2017) )).¶23. When viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, Turner's convictions on Counts III and IV are not so contrary to......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT