212 So. 3d 886
Miss. Ct. App.2016Background
- On July 5, 2014, Georgia Ford returned home early morning, fell asleep on her couch, and later awoke to Andre Doss standing over her naked and touching her hips; Doss fled when confronted.
- Georgia’s exterior porch light had been unscrewed; a pair of men’s underwear with stains was found near the hedges and later tested positive for Doss’s semen.
- Georgia and her son Victor testified they had no relationship with Doss and had never before seen him inside the house; Doss claimed a secret consensual relationship and an alibi of being at his mother’s home.
- Doss was convicted in Jefferson County Circuit Court of burglary of a dwelling with intent to commit sexual battery and sentenced to twelve years; posttrial motions were denied and he appealed.
- On appeal Doss argued (1) insufficient evidence, (2) verdict against the overwhelming weight of the evidence, and (3) plain error for failing to instruct the jury on elements of sexual battery.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Doss) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for burglary with intent to commit sexual battery | Evidence (victim testimony, Doss in house naked, semen on underwear, unscrewed lightbulb) proves breaking/entering and intent | Doss says no proof he broke/entered and no proved intent to commit sexual battery; claimed consensual relationship and alibi | Affirmed — viewed in light most favorable to State, jury could find beyond reasonable doubt both breaking/entering and intent |
| Weight of the evidence (motion for new trial) | Verdict supported by evidence; no unconscionable injustice | Verdict contrary to evidence; his testimony and alibi undermine conviction | Affirmed — not so contrary to overwhelming weight that it would sanction an unconscionable injustice |
| Jury instruction on elements of intended crime (sexual battery) | Instruction identified sexual battery as the intended crime; elements not required to be instructed separately | Court erred by failing to instruct on elements of sexual battery (plain error) | Affirmed — only intent to commit some crime must be proven; sexual battery is commonly understood and no plain-error reversal warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- Bush v. State, 895 So. 2d 836 (Miss. 2005) (standard for sufficiency review and jury’s role in resolving conflicts)
- Davis v. State, 910 So. 2d 1228 (Miss. Ct. App. 2005) (definition of "breaking" includes slight force such as turning a knob)
- Newburn v. State, 205 So. 2d 260 (Miss. 1967) (intent shown by defendant’s acts, declarations, and surrounding circumstances)
- Windless v. State, 185 So. 3d 956 (Miss. 2015) (burglary requires proof of intent to commit some crime; underlying crime elements need not be separately proven)
- Quinn v. State, 191 So. 3d 1227 (Miss. 2016) (reiterates that only intent to commit a crime is required for burglary; no separate instruction on underlying crime elements necessary)