Faulkner v. State
109 So. 3d 142
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Faulkner was convicted in Pearl River County Circuit Court of seven felonies rooted in the alleged sexual abuse of two children in his care.
- The victims were A.F., Faulkner's adopted son, and J.P., a foster child; abuse began when A.F. was about six or seven and continued for roughly seven years, with similar conduct toward J.P.
- DHS substantiated sexual abuse in March 2007, removed the children, and notified local law enforcement after uncovering abuse at Faulkner's prior Hancock County residence.
- Faulkner confessed during a recorded Miranda interview, admitting touching the boys and directing them to engage in sexual acts with each other.
- Count VII charged directing a minor to commit a felony by causing A.F. to perform fellatio on J.P.; Instruction 13 neared but did not track the indictment's precise language.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Instruction 13 constructively amended Count VII | Faulkner argues the instruction altered the indictment's language. | Faulkner concedes waiver but contends plain error. | No reversible error; variance not material or prejudicial. |
| Whether separate convictions for sexual battery and fondling violate double jeopardy | Conclude that fondling is a lesser-included offense of sexual battery under some circumstances. | Argues improper duplication of offenses for same act. | Sufficient evidence supports separate, distinct acts; no double jeopardy violation. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for Count III (fondling J.P.) | Evidence within August 2006 timeframe supports Count III. | Date ambiguity undermines sufficiency for the charged event. | Evidence sufficiently shows acts within reasonable limits of the charged timeframe. |
| Weight of the evidence across all seven verdicts | Victim testimony and related evidence justify verdicts. | Verdicts are against the overwhelming weight of the evidence. | No reversal; verdicts not against the weight of the evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Nix v. State, 8 So.3d 141 (Miss. 2009) (waiver and plain-error review framework for forfeited objections)
- Decker v. State, 66 So.3d 654 (Miss. 2011) (indictment notice and fundamental prosecution principles)
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (U.S. 1993) (plain-error standard for forfeited errors)
- Duplantis v. State, 708 So.2d 1327 (Miss. 1998) (instruction variance and element alignment)
- Tapper v. State, 47 So.3d 95 (Miss. 2010) (unlawful touching can occur without sexual battery; separate charges may exist)
- Friley v. State, 879 So.2d 1031 (Miss. 2004) (penetration may constitute sexual battery; exceptions for related offenses)
- McBride v. State, 61 So.3d 138 (Miss. 2011) (reasonableness of timing in proximity to charged date)
- Daniels v. State, 742 So.2d 1140 (Miss. 1999) (time-date elements not essential elements; proof within reasonable limits)
- Jones v. State, 20 So.3d 57 (Miss. Ct. App. 2009) (standard for evidentiary weight and appellate review)
- Herring v. State, 691 So.2d 948 (Miss. 1997) (weight-of-the-evidence standard in Mississippi appellate review)