90 So. 3d 116
Miss. Ct. App.2012Background
- Hawkins was convicted in Leflore County Circuit Court of sexual battery and four counts of touching a child for lustful purposes.
- He was sentenced to five consecutive terms totaling 28 years, with no parole.
- Jane, a fourteen-year-old, alleged Hawkins—her stepfather—sexually abused her; she reported this to a liturgical dancer at her church and to police.
- Medical evidence showed hymenal disruption and vaginitis consistent with trauma.
- The abuse began after Hurricane Rita in 2005, with increasing frequency at Hawkins’s Leflore Avenue and Linden Avenue homes; two rapes were attempted but not completed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Venue proved by reopening testimony | Venue evidence sufficient; reopening allowed due to inadvertence. | Initial venue proof insufficient; reopening prejudiced defense. | Trial court properly reopened; venue proved in Leflore County. |
| Exclusion of Jane's letter | Letter implied recantation; admissible to impeach truthfulness. | Letter irrelevant and undisclosed; cross-exam should be allowed. | Letter excluded as irrelevant; cross-exam limitation upheld. |
| State's 'classic case' argument | Comments properly described as legitimate evidentiary argument. | Remarks were prejudicial and inflammatory. | Procedurally barred for lack of contemporaneous objection; harmless error. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lyle v. State, 987 So.2d 948 (Miss. 2008) (discretion to reopen evidence for inadvertence or compelling reasons)
- Bearden v. State, 662 So.2d 620 (Miss. 1995) (judicial notice of city within county for venue)
- Smith v. State, 646 So.2d 538 (Miss. 1994) (venue may be proven circumstantially)
- Hinderman, 625 F.2d 994 (10th Cir. 1980) (reopening evidence for venue addressed in similar terms)
- Leslie, United States v., 103 F.3d 1093 (2d Cir. 1997) (second circuit on reopening for technical matters)
- Thomas v. State, 784 So.2d 247 (Miss. Ct. App. 2000) (judicial notice and venue discussions)
- Foley v. State, 914 So.2d 677 (Miss. 2005) (cross-examination scope and relevance principles)
- Catchings v. State, 39 So.3d 943 (Miss. Ct. App. 2009) (evidence relevance; harmless error standard)
- Ivy v. State, 589 So.2d 1263 (Miss. 1991) (prosecutorial argument latitude within evidentiary bounds)