66 So. 3d 182
Miss. Ct. App.2010Background
- Cox was tried in Hinds County Circuit Court on September 22, 2008 for forcible rape, carjacking, and kidnapping; verdict guilty on all counts on September 29, 2008; post-trial motions denied and appeal filed.
- On November 11, 2007, J.R. was abducted at a gas station when Cox forced her into the backseat of her vehicle and threatened to kill her.
- During the assault, J.R. dialed 911 and then called a friend and her ex-husband; she kept the phone on while pleading with Cox to release her.
- Cox forced J.R. to remove clothing; he began to kiss and touch her, and raped her when she complied; she escaped during a distraction and fled to a BP gas station.
- J.R. was transported to UMC for examination; there, social worker Pentecost and nurse Welch documented the assault and observed redness on J.R.’s labia minor; a rape kit was prepared.
- Investigators located Cox after a dog-tracking search near abandoned cars; J.R. identified Cox from a photographic lineup, and DNA analysts linked Cox’s DNA to material found on J.R. and on a hat.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of S-4 jury instruction (ex post facto concern) | Cox argues S-4 broadens rape elements post‑crime. | State contends statute change did not alter elements; instruction accurate. | Instruction upheld; no error. |
| Admission of rape kits despite chain of custody questions | Discrepancies in who delivered kits raise tampering concerns. | No evidence of tampering; cross-examination sufficient; discretion to admit. | Rape kits properly admitted; no abuse of discretion. |
| Admissibility of Pentecost's testimony (hearsay) under Rule 803(4) | Pentecost not a medical diagnostician; testimony should be excluded. | Circumstances showed trustworthiness; corroborated by nurse and J.R. | Testimony admitted; no error. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for conviction | Evidence insufficient to prove all elements beyond reasonable doubt. | DNA, phone use, and corroborating testimony establish elements. | Evidence sufficient for guilty verdict. |
| Exclusion of civil-suit evidence to show bias | Civil action evidence could show bias against Cox. | Evidence would be prejudicial and irrelevant to guilt; permissible exclusion. | Exclusion affirmed; no reversible error. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bush v. State, 895 So.2d 836 (Miss.Ct.App.2005) (standard for appellate review of sufficiency)
- Davis v. State, 909 So.2d 749 (Miss.Ct.App.2005) (instructions must fairly announce the law)
- White v. State, 722 So.2d 1242 (Miss.1998) (chain-of-custody analysis and burden on accused)
- Doby v. State, 532 So.2d 584 (Miss.1988) (trial-court discretion in evidentiary rulings)
- Ware v. Entergy Miss., Inc., 887 So.2d 763 (Miss.2003) (M.R.E. 403 balancing test)
- Harris v. State, 861 So.2d 1003 (Miss.2003) (abuse-of-discretion standard for hearsay rulings)