126 So. 3d 985
Miss. Ct. App.2013Background
- Hines was convicted in 2012 in Neshoba County Circuit Court of statutory rape and sexual battery of a child, sentenced as a habitual offender to life imprisonment on each count, consecutive; he appeals asserting four errors.
- The offenses allegedly occurred during 2000–2004; two victims, A.D. and D.W., had Hines in a father-like role during early 2000s.
- Hines had not contact with the children between 2001 and 2003, and again after 2004 until 2011, with visitation occurring within a narrow window identified by defense jury instructions.
- Indictment framed a four-year time span (2000–2004), but jury instructions narrowed the window to May 2003–August 2004; the indictment itself was not amended.
- At trial, the State presented testimony from the victims and Arnold; the defense did not successfully contest the credibility of the State’s witnesses, and closing arguments were challenged but not preserved by contemporaneous objection.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Indictment notice and time-span sufficiency | Hines argues the four-year window was too broad to provide notice. | Hines relied on the broad window and argues potential limitations issues. | Indictment provided notice within narrowed window; no prejudice shown. |
| Statute-of-limitations within indictment | The first two years (2000–2002) were constrained by limitations; indictment defective. | Legislative correction included (c) and (d); no defect. | Statute-of-limitations issue resolved by doctrine and legislative history; no defect. |
| Weight and sufficiency of the evidence | Evidence insufficient or against the overwhelming weight. | Jury credibility determinations supported conviction. | Evidence sufficient; verdicts not against the weight of the evidence. |
| Preservation of prejudicial closing argument claim | Closing remark prejudicial to Hines. | Failure to object preserves issue only if timely; not preserved here. | Issue waived for appeal; no reversible error. |
Key Cases Cited
- Faulkner v. State, 109 So.3d 142 (Miss.Ct.App.2013) (indictment must give fair notice of the offense)
- Caston v. State, 949 So.2d 852 (Miss.Ct.App.2007) (objections to indictments; effect of requested instructions on notice)
- Caston v. State, 823 So.2d 473 (Miss.2002) (cannot complain of an instruction properly given at defendant's request)
- Gordon v. State, 977 So.2d 420 (Miss.Ct.App.2008) (date specificity not required if defendant fully advised)
- Hawkins v. State, 90 So.3d 116 (Miss.Ct.App.2012) (contemporaneous objection required to preserve closing argument issue)
- Spicer v. State, 921 So.2d 292 (Miss.2006) (preservation requirement for prejudicial remarks)
- Bush v. State, 895 So.2d 836 (Miss.2005) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence (JNOV))
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1981) (standard for testing sufficiency of evidence in criminal trials)