George Lomax v. State of Mississippi
220 So. 3d 211
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- George Lomax, assistant principal, was convicted of sexually battering Abby, a 16-year-old student; Y‑DNA consistent with Lomax was found on the victim’s underwear.
- Victim reported the incident soon after; she testified at trial and was cross‑examined.
- Trial resulted in conviction and a 30‑year sentence (20 to serve) plus probation and sex‑offender registration; Lomax appealed.
- Appellate issues raised: challenges to for‑cause strikes (both prosecution and defense), Batson challenge to prosecutor’s peremptory strikes, admission of hearsay statements, ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to object to hearsay, alleged prosecutorial misconduct, and exclusion (or alleged exclusion) of DNA evidence.
- Court reviewed trial‑court discretion on jury rulings, Batson three‑step framework, hearsay exceptions (excited utterance; statements for medical diagnosis/treatment), and Strickland ineffective‑assistance standard.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Lomax) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prosecution challenge for cause | Removal was improper because juror said she could be fair despite prior connection via counsel to family members | Trial court properly excused juror for failure/inability to respond and health issues affecting service | Trial court did not abuse discretion; strike for cause upheld |
| Defense challenge for cause (Juror 8) | Juror who was "friends" with victim’s father should have been excused for cause | Juror affirmed ability to be impartial; Lomax used a peremptory to remove him and cannot show an incompetent juror sat | No reversible error; peremptory used and no incompetent juror forced onto jury |
| Batson challenge to prosecutor’s peremptory strikes | Strikes targeted black males (racial/sex group) — discriminatory use of peremptories | State: struck jurors had disqualifying histories (prior accusations/convictions); overall panel remained predominantly African‑American | Batson challenge failed at prima facie stage; trial court properly found no discriminatory purpose |
| Admission of victim’s statements / ineffective assistance | Counsel ineffective for not objecting to hearsay statements (friend, investigator, nurse); statements prejudicial | Statements likely admissible as excited utterance or for medical treatment; victim testified and was cross‑examined; record inadequate for Strickland relief on direct appeal | Appellate court declines to decide ineffectiveness on direct appeal; denies relief without prejudice to post‑conviction petition |
| Prosecutorial misconduct (leading/other‑acts insinuation) | Prosecutor asked witness if Lomax had been inappropriate, implying other misconduct | Question was objected to and sustained; court gave general instruction and Lomax did not request curative instruction | No reversible error; sustained objection and instruction presumed to have cured any harm |
| Exclusion of DNA evidence | Trial court allegedly refused evidence that other male Y‑DNA profiles were present | Record shows jury heard about additional trace Y‑DNA from at least two other males and that casual transfer was possible | No merit; evidence regarding other male profiles was presented to jury |
Key Cases Cited
- Berry v. State, 703 So. 2d 269 (Miss. 1997) (deference to trial court on for‑cause juror strikes and importance of demeanor review)
- Adkins v. Sanders, 871 So. 2d 732 (Miss. 2004) (jury selection is a trial‑court judgment call; appellate courts defer)
- Burgess v. State, 178 So. 3d 1266 (Miss. 2015) (defendant must exhaust peremptories and show an incompetent juror sat to prevail on denied challenge for cause)
- Pruitt v. State, 986 So. 2d 940 (Miss. 2008) (articulates Batson three‑step framework)
- Walker v. State, 815 So. 2d 1209 (Miss. 2002) (trial judge is factfinder on Batson issues; appellate deference)
- Wilcher v. State, 863 So. 2d 776 (Miss. 2003) (direct‑appeal limits on resolving ineffective‑assistance claims; record adequacy requirement)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two‑prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Hosford v. State, 525 So. 2d 789 (Miss. 1988) (prosecutor may not ask questions to insinuate defendant’s other misconduct without basis)