Wilson v. State

• Decision Date: 26 April 2011
• Docket Number: NO. 2009-KA-01498-COA,2009-KA-01498-COA
• Court: Mississippi Court of Appeals
• Parties: JOSEPH JOHNETT WILSON APPELLANT v. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE

JOSEPH JOHNETT WILSON APPELLANT

v.STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE

NO. 2009-KA-01498-COA

COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

Dated: April 26, 2011.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 07/30/2009

TRIAL JUDGE: HON. W. SWAN YERGER

COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: HINDS COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: GEORGE T. HOLMES

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

BY: SCOTT STUART

DISTRICT ATTORNEY: ROBERT SHULER SMITH

NATURE OF THE CASE: CRIMINAL-FELONY

TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION: CONVICTED OF SEXUAL BATTERY AND

SENTENCED TO THIRTY YEARS IN THE

CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED-04/26/2011

MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:

MANDATE ISSUED:

BEFORE LEE, C.J., ROBERTS AND CARLTON, JJ.

CARLTON, J., FOR THE COURT:

¶1. A jury in the Circuit Court of Hinds County, First Judicial District, convicted Joseph Wilson of sexual battery. The trial court sentenced Wilson to thirty years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections (MDOC). Aggrieved, Wilson appeals his conviction and sentence raising the following six issues for the Court's review: whether (1) the trial court erred in excluding relevant defense evidence; (2) the trial court erred in itstreatment of the Batson objections by the State and the defense; (3) Instruction S-4 precluded the jury from considering one of the statutory elements of the charge; (4) the trial court erred in limiting Wilson's closing argument; (5) the verdict is supported by the weight of evidence; and (6) the cumulative effect of errors requires reversal. Finding no error, we affirm.

FACTS

¶2. On October 19, 2005, at approximately 4:00 p.m., Investigator Latasha Holmes, with the Hinds County Sheriff's Department, responded to a call in reference to a 17-year-old rape victim, Teresa Hughes.¹ When Investigator Holmes arrived at the hospital where Hughes was undergoing examination, she interviewed Hughes regarding the specifics of the rape and learned that Wilson, the victim's father, had raped her. Investigator Holmes also observed Hughes and took pictures of the bruises on her body. In addition, Investigator Holmes, along with Detective Steven Lofton, also with the Hinds County Sheriff's Department, and John Hughes, the victim's brother, traveled to the scene of the crime. Investigator Holmes and Detective Lofton then located Wilson at his home and placed him under arrest.

¶3. On March 9, 2009, Wilson pled guilty to the charge of sexual battery. Then, after the entry of his plea, through new counsel, Wilson filed for post-conviction relief, which the trial court essentially treated as a motion of the defendant to withdraw his guilty plea. After conducting a hearing, the trial court entered an order that allowed Wilson to withdraw his plea. Wilson's trial commenced on July 27, 2009. During the trial, Hughes testified that on October 18, 2005, Wilson arrived at her house and proceeded to discipline her with a belt.

Hughes testified that after being disciplined, her father instructed her to gather her clothes and to leave with him. Hughes testified that despite her understanding that Wilson was taking her to his home, Wilson drove them to a sand pit in a secluded area of Hinds County. Hughes further testified that once there, Wilson ordered her out of his vehicle and removed all of her clothing. Hughes then testified that Wilson pushed her into his truck and raped her. In addition, Hughes testified that the day following the rape, Wilson drove her to school and offered her thirty dollars for her silence about the rape. Hughes's mother testified that after receiving a phone call from Hughes informing her of the rape, she instructed her brother to check Hughes out of school and take her to St. Dominic Hospital for an examination and treatment. Investigator Holmes and Detective Lofton testified that the hospital performed a rape kit on Hughes. At trial, the parties stipulated that Wilson is the biological father of Hughes and that the sperm found inside of Hughes was from Wilson.

¶4. At trial, Wilson testified that on the night in question, he drank an excessive amount of intoxicating liquor prior to his arrival at Hughes's house. Wilson testified that he disciplined Hughes with a belt when he reached her house and then ordered her to leave with him. Wilson testified that upon his departure from Hughes's house, he saw muzzle flashes and heard gunshots aimed toward his vehicle. Wilson testified that when he heard the shots, he pulled into a store to allow Hughes to drive, giving him access to the pistol in his truck in case he needed to respond with gunfire. In addition, Wilson testified that after switching drivers, he started drinking again, passed out, and awoke in his truck in his driveway with his pants down across his legs. Wilson testified that he saw his daughter crawling back into the driver's seat at this time.

¶5. A jury in the Circuit Court of the First Judicial District of Hinds County convicted Wilson of sexual battery. Wilson was sentenced to thirty years in the custody of the MDOC. Aggrieved, Wilson appeals.

DISCUSSION

I. MOTIONS IN LIMINE

¶6. Wilson argues that the trial court erred in granting the motions in limine brought by the State.

¶7. The standard of review employed by this Court when reviewing the trial court's admission or exclusion of evidence is abuse of discretion. Ladnier v. State, 878 So. 2d 926, 933 (127) (Miss. 2004) (citing Whitten v. Cox, 799 So. 2d 1, 13 (127) (Miss. 2000)). "Where error involves the admission or exclusion of evidence, this Court 'will not reverse unless the error adversely affects a substantial right of a party.'" Id. "A motion in limine 'should be granted only when the trial court finds two factors are present: (1) the material or evidence in question will be inadmissible at a trial under the rules of evidence; and (2) the mere offer, reference, or statements made during trial concerning the material will tend to prejudice the jury.'" McNeill v. State, 919 So. 2d 77, 82-83 (115) (Miss. Ct. App. 2005) (quoting McGilberry v. State, 797 So. 2d 940, 942 (112) (Miss. 2001)).

¶8. The State first filed a motion in limine² to prohibit Wilson from making any reference to his pretrial incarceration and also to prohibit Wilson from testifying as to what sentencehe stood to receive if convicted. The State's first motion was undisputed by Wilson. As such, the trial court granted the motion preventing reference to Wilson's pretrial incarceration.

¶9. The State filed its second motion in limine³ to prohibit Wilson from introducing any testimony concerning the victim's past sexual behavior. Wilson agreed not to introduce such evidence, and the trial court granted the motion.

¶10. The third motion in limine filed by the State sought to exclude all testimony relating to his daughter's alleged boyfriend, Guy Horn, on the grounds that the testimony was irrelevant and offered only to confuse or mislead the jury. Wilson objected arguing that the witnesses' testimonies supported his theory that Hughes had accused Wilson of rape in retaliation for his disciplining and interfering with her relationship with Horn. Wilson specifically claims that the trial court wrongfully excluded the testimonies of Dennis Grant, Horn's probation officer, and Officer Ken Travis.⁴ The trial court granted the State's motion in limine finding that the proposed evidence by the defendant concerning Horn was not relevant under Mississippi Rule of Evidence 401. The trial court further explained that "[e]ven if [the evidence] were relevant under [Mississippi Rule of Evidence] 402, [Rule] 403 provides that although relevant[,] evidence may be excluded, if its probative value issubstantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues or misleading the jury or considerations of undue delay, waste of time or needless presentation of cumulative evidence. The Court finds that based on Rules 401, 402, and 403, as well as the arguments by the State, that... the motion is granted."

¶11. After a review of the record, we find that Wilson provided no evidence of any plan or conspiracy between Horn and Hughes against Wilson. The State bears no burden to show force or lack of consent when proving the offense of sexual intercourse with a minor by her parent in violation of Mississippi Code Annotated section 97-3-95(2) (Rev. 2006). We note, however, that the State does bear the burden of proving that the status of the perpetrator to be the parent of the victim.⁵ Therefore, we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court's ruling on the State's third motion in limine.

¶12. The State filed its final motion in limine aiming to prohibit Wilson from introducing additional witness testimony on the grounds of irrelevancy and lack of personal knowledge. Wilson argues that the witnesses' testimonies support his theory of a retaliation conspiracy between Horn and his daughter.

113. In addressing the court's rulings as to these various witnesses, the record shows that Wilson first sought to call witnesses to testify that he often drank to excess causing him to pass out, unable to be awakened and that he had told these witnesses he possessed the ability to reach sexual completion even while intoxicated based on his previous sexual relations with his former wife, Helen Hughes, the victim's mother.⁶ The testimony was expected to pertainto only what Wilson asserts he had told these witnesses regarding Helen's sexual activity with Wilson, and it was not to provide any evidence of his sexual activity with his daughter or other persons. In addition, the testimony was not to provide any insight as to an alleged conspiracy or plan against Wilson. The trial court granted the State's motion to exclude the testimony of these witnesses; the court found that Mississippi Rules of Evidence 401, 402, and 403 applied to exclude the testimony.

¶14. Wilson also sought to present testimony from various witnesses pertaining to Horn's relationship with him and his daughter.⁷...