Expose v. State
99 So. 3d 1141
Miss.2012Background
- Trial convicted Expose of forcible sexual intercourse with Bessee; Court of Appeals reversed on consent instruction; majority affirming, holding no error in denying consent instruction; post-trial discovery of Bond’s 2010 domestic-violence conviction did not warrant a new trial; consent theory was Expose’s sole defense supported by his testimony; trial evidence showed force in assault element; S-l instruction framed force as basis for guilt, negating need for explicit consent instruction; dissenters argue failure to give consent instruction was reversible error.
- Evidence showed Bessee’s injuries and ant bites from alleged assault, with medical documentation and witness testimony; Expose testified the encounter was consensual and that prior interactions occurred; DNA matched Expose but did not resolve consent issue; Bond’s later domestic-violence conviction was remote and did not explain ant-bite injuries; post-trial Brady material did not change outcome.
- Trial court refused consent instruction D-6 but given S-l instruction on force; court held consent not an independent element, force required; majority concluded no reversible error; post-trial discovery of Bond’s conviction not material under Brady; Court reinstated Stone County verdict and sentence.
- The case raises whether consent should have been a jury issue separate from force in a forcible sexual-intercourse prosecution; the record supported denial of a simple-assault instruction as unwarranted; the majority found the consent defense adequately addressed by the trial instructions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Consent instruction required for forcible intercourse | Expose’s sole defense was consent | State argued consent not required | Consent instruction not required; trial instructions adequately conveyed law |
| Brady material from Bond’s domestic-violence conviction | Bond’s conviction could be exculpatory | No Brady violation; evidence unlikely to change outcome | Post-trial discovery did not warrant a new trial |
| Lesser-included offense instruction D-3 on simple assault | Inclusion possible due to theory of case | Simple assault lacks evidence basis | Instruction properly refused; no basis to support simple assault verdict |
Key Cases Cited
- Heidel v. State, 587 So.2d 835 (Miss. 1991) (instruction must reflect defense theory if supported by evidence)
- Murphy v. State, 566 So.2d 1201 (Miss. 1990) (defense instructions must be properly presented)
- Chinn v. State, 958 So.2d 1223 (Miss. 2007) (instructions read together; one proper presenting theory unless no foundation)
- Griffin v. State, 533 So.2d 444 (Miss. 1988) (simple assault may be lesser-included where evidence supports two crimes)
- Seigfried v. State, 869 So.2d 1040 (Miss.Ct.App. 2004) (consent instruction not warranted under certain statutes)
- Modere v. State, 794 So.2d 200 (Miss. 2001) (consent and force considerations in sexual-offense statutes)
- State v. Adefusika, 989 A.2d 467 (R.I. 2010) (multi-jurisdictional authority on lack of consent and force)
- Cruz v. People, 923 P.2d 311 (Colo. App. 1996) (consent not needed where force-based elements are proven)
- Mackor v. State, 527 A.2d 710 (Conn. App. 1987) (consent implied by force suffices in some jurisdictions)
- State v. Joem, 249 N.W.2d 921 (N.D. 1977) (lack of consent inferred from force)