Casey Mark Burgess v. State of Mississippi
2015 Miss. LEXIS 570
| Miss. | 2015Background
- Defendant Casey Mark Burgess was tried and convicted by a jury in Rankin County for three counts of sexual battery (vaginal, anal, oral) against his wife; concurrent 30-year sentences were imposed.
- The victim testified Burgess forced multiple acts over several hours while threatening the family; Burgess later gave a videotaped confession admitting the assaults and that he fled from police.
- Procedural: Burgess moved for directed verdict, JNOV, and new trial (all denied) and appealed raising eight issues including jury instructions, voir dire limits, juror challenges, exclusion of prior sexual-conduct evidence, sufficiency, flight instruction, sentencing letters, and admission of a redacted text message.
- The defense invoked the statutory spousal-exception affirmative defense (Miss. Code §97-3-99) arguing that—because the parties were married—force must be alleged/proved to overcome the marital defense; defense also sought to introduce prior consensual sexual acts without pretrial notice under MRE 412.
- Trial court admitted jury instructions that required finding force once the marital-defense issue was raised, excluded proffered prior sexual-conduct testimony for failure to comply with Rule 412 notice, admitted a redacted text message on rebuttal, and considered victim-impact / other letters at judge sentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Burgess) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jury instructions adding “force” where indictment tracked §97‑3‑95 | Instruction was proper once defendant raised marital-exception; force is necessary to rebut that defense | Instruction constructively amended indictment by adding element of force without notice | Affirmed: force is not element of sexual battery but is proof the State must provide to overcome §97‑3‑99 when defendant raises marital defense; jury instruction proper because defendant raised the issue |
| Limitation of voir dire on religious questions | Court properly curtailed repetitive/religious-focused questioning and allowed narrower bias questions | Court improperly limited defense’s probing into jurors’ religious beliefs about sexual practices | Affirmed: no abuse of discretion and no shown prejudice |
| Denial of challenges for cause to certain jurors | Trial court reasonably found defense failed to lay foundation for cause strikes | Jurors’ extrajudicial connections required strikes for cause | Affirmed: no clear error; defendant did not show exhaustion of peremptories + forced seating of incompetent juror |
| Exclusion of evidence of victim’s prior sexual acts (MRE 412) | Exclusion proper because defendant failed to file Rule 412(c) pretrial written motion and offer of proof | Evidence was admissible to show consent / sexual history and defense had no notice requirement | Affirmed: trial court properly excluded under MRE 412(b)/(c) for lack of notice |
| Sufficiency (directed verdict / JNOV / new trial) | Evidence (victim testimony, confession, corroborating facts) sufficient | Evidence legally insufficient or improperly admitted | Affirmed: viewing evidence in State’s favor, reasonable jurors could convict |
| Flight instruction | Flight evidence (defendant’s attempt to avoid deputies and crash/flee) supports instruction | Flight instruction impermissibly prejudicial and was not warranted | Affirmed: instruction proper; concurring justice disagreed but found no reversible error |
| Admission of victim-impact and other letters at sentencing | Letters admissible at judge sentencing; rules of evidence not strictly applicable; not prejudicial/cumulative | Letters violated Confrontation Clause, hearsay, and discovery rules | Affirmed: sentencing judge has broad discretion; confrontation clause not implicated at judge sentencing; letters cumulative |
| Admission of redacted text message (post‑assault) | Text rebutted defense theory of financial/marital-motive and showed defendant expected charges; probative > prejudicial | Text was improper redirect and lacked on-the-record admissibility finding | Affirmed: trial court weighed probative value and admitted on redirect; no abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Watkins v. State, 101 So.3d 628 (Miss. 2012) (jury-instruction standard; review for abuse of discretion)
- Nix v. State, 8 So.3d 141 (Miss. 2009) (variance between indictment and instruction must be material)
- Trigg v. State, 759 So.2d 448 (Miss. Ct. App. 2000) (force is not an element of sexual battery but is relevant to rebut marital affirmative defense)
- Mullaney v. Wilbur, 421 U.S. 684 (1975) (due process requires prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt elements that negate affirmative defenses when applicable)
- Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808 (1991) (victim-impact evidence admissible at sentencing)
- Drummer v. State, 167 So.3d 1180 (Miss. 2015) (treatment and caution about flight instructions)
- Goss v. State, 465 So.2d 1079 (Miss. 1985) (victim testimony alone can support conviction if consistent with circumstances)
- Jenkins v. State, 131 So.3d 544 (Miss. 2013) (standard for directed verdict and JNOV review)