271 So. 3d 650
Miss. Ct. App.2018Background
- On May 26–27, 2015, 14‑year‑old "Jane" left her home after an argument, called Faron Young, and he picked her up; DNA from vaginal swabs matched Young.
- Jane testified the encounter in Young’s truck was consensual; she had called him to pick her up.
- Jane’s mother could not locate her, called Young (who denied knowing Jane was with him), and later involved police; Jane was dropped off around 2 a.m. and recovered by police.
- Young was indicted for statutory rape (Count I) and kidnapping (Count II); convicted by a jury and sentenced as a habitual offender to concurrent 30‑year MDOC terms.
- Post‑trial, Young challenged (1) sufficiency/form of the statutory‑rape indictment and a court amendment, (2) that jury Instruction S‑2A constructively amended the kidnapping indictment, and (3) sufficiency of the evidence for kidnapping.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Young) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Sufficiency / amendment of statutory‑rape indictment | Indictment, as amended, tracked statutory elements and amendment was one of form, not substance. | Original indictment mixed subsections and was fatally defective; amendment materially changed essential facts and prejudiced defense. | Court: Original indictment gave fair notice; amendment was of form, not substance; no reversible error. |
| 2) Constructive amendment by jury instruction (kidnapping) | Instruction S‑2A tracked the statutory elements (including "inveigle") and did not change the essence of the charged offense; defendant waived objection. | Instruction deviated from indictment and constructively amended charge; plain‑error review warranted. | Waiver applies for failure to object; under plain‑error review the variance was not material and did not prejudice Young. |
| 3) Sufficiency of the evidence for kidnapping | Evidence (Jane under 16, Young detained/failed to return her to parental custody, lied to mother, DNA corroboration) permitted conviction under statutory method for kidnapping a child against parental will. | Argues Jane left voluntarily and was not held against her or inveigled; insufficiency to prove kidnapping beyond a reasonable doubt. | Viewing evidence in prosecution’s favor, a rational juror could find Young kidnapped Jane (minor under 16) against parents’ will; sufficiency satisfied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Moten v. State, 20 So. 3d 757 (Miss. Ct. App.) (indictment review de novo)
- Gilmer v. State, 955 So. 2d 829 (Miss.) (indictment must contain essential elements and facts)
- Chandler v. State, 789 So. 2d 109 (Miss. Ct. App.) (amendment must be of form, not substance)
- Crawford v. State, 754 So. 2d 1211 (Miss.) (defense preserved if equally available after amendment)
- Decker v. State, 66 So. 3d 654 (Miss.) (defendant must be prosecuted for crime charged absent waiver)
- Bell v. State, 725 So. 2d 836 (Miss.) (not all variances between indictment and instruction are constructive amendments)
- Duplantis v. State, 708 So. 2d 1327 (Miss.) (instructions must follow requisite elements but need not verbatim track indictment)
- Burrell v. State, 183 So. 3d 19 (Miss.) (statutory routes to kidnapping under §97‑3‑53)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S.) (standard for sufficiency of the evidence)
- Russell v. State, 924 So. 2d 604 (Miss. Ct. App.) (legal sufficiency standard)