203 So. 3d 794
Miss. Ct. App.2016Background
- Nine-year-old victim (Abby) awoke in the back of an SUV to David Ringer touching her vagina with his fingers and rubbing his penis between her buttocks; she reported the incident immediately.
- Ringer was indicted on two counts of sexual battery: Count I (digital penetration of the vagina) and Count II (anal penetration by penis).
- Trial testimony and medical evidence corroborated vaginal digital penetration: enlarged hymen, inflammation/tearing of the vagina, and Y‑DNA on the victim’s underwear matching Ringer.
- Evidence of anal penetration was ambiguous: Abby used child terms ("butt," "crack," "where you wipe"), sometimes said he "stuck" his penis but also said it was only "on" her; nurse examiner’s report recorded denial of anal contact; no physical evidence supporting anal penetration.
- Jury convicted on both counts; on appeal the court reviewed sufficiency of evidence for Count II and sentencing linkage between the two counts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for anal penetration (Count II) | State: victim’s statements and circumstantial vaginal trauma permit inference of anal penetration | Ringer: testimony ambiguous and medical evidence does not show anal penetration | Reversed Count II: evidence insufficient to prove anal penetration beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Lesser‑included offense (gratification of lust) | State: even if no anal penetration, touching between buttocks supports conviction for lesser touching offense | Ringer: convicted of sexual battery only; jury not instructed on lesser offense | Court rendered conviction for gratification of lust as lesser included offense and remanded for sentencing on that offense |
| Sentencing ambiguity / suspended years allocation | State: trial court suspended 10 years from the cumulative 50‑year sentence | Ringer: ambiguity whether suspension applied to Count I or II; if Count II reversed, suspension should apply to Count I | Court found suspended portion improperly applied to cumulative sentence; reversed sentence on Count I and remanded for resentencing |
| Remand and remedy | State: requested affirmance or limited relief | Ringer: asked sentencing relief tied to reversal of Count II | Court affirmed conviction on Count I (sexual battery), reversed Count II and rendered gratification of lust, and remanded for resentencing on Count I and sentencing on Count II (lesser offense) |
Key Cases Cited
- Bush v. State, 895 So.2d 836 (Miss. 2005) (standard for sufficiency of evidence review)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (rational trier of fact standard for sufficiency review)
- Johnson v. State, 626 So.2d 631 (Miss. 1993) (penetration, however slight, suffices for sexual battery)
- Friley v. State, 879 So.2d 1031 (Miss. 2004) (gratification of lust can be lesser included when penetration alleged by body part and lustful intent inferred)
- Jenkins v. State, 131 So.3d 544 (Miss. 2013) (reaffirming Friley on inference of lustful intent)
- Anderson v. State, 288 So.2d 852 (Miss. 1974) (rule of lenity in resolving sentencing ambiguity)
- Burrows v. State, 961 So.2d 701 (Miss. 2007) (victim testimony of ‘‘inside’’ contact supported finding of penetration)