Jenkins v. State
2013 Miss. LEXIS 569
| Miss. | 2013Background
- Jenkins was indicted for two counts of sexual battery and one count of statutory rape against his five-year-old niece V.R.; he was convicted only of fondling, a lesser-included offense of the second count of sexual battery.
- In summer 2007 in Pearl River County, Jenkins, who had just turned nineteen, babysat V.R. for several weeks while her mother worked.
- V.R. testified that Jenkins repeatedly took her to a shed, removed clothing, touched her sexually, and coerced her to touch him; she described a specific incident around July 16, 2007 tied to a diary entry.
- Multiple witnesses (Frierson, Clark, Gutherz, Poche) corroborated V.R.’s accounts; medical examination did not conclusively prove abuse, though a therapist noted behavior consistent with abuse.
- Jenkins appealed on grounds of (a) discovery related to the diary, (b) indictment dating, (c) sufficiency of evidence for fondling, and (d) weight of the evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the diary reference created a discovery violation | Jenkins: discovery violation; diary not disclosed; remedy due | State: no diary disclosed or offered; no violation | No discovery violation; court correctly declined Box-type remedy; diary not in play |
| Whether Count II’s date range was fatally flawed | Jenkins: wrong dates; alibi/defense impeded | State: exact date not required; child’s memory admissible within timeframe | Count II legally sufficient despite date variance; child could identify July within indictment range |
| Whether there was sufficient evidence for fondling and related verdicts | Jenkins: no lustful intent proven; insufficient for lesser-included instruction and verdicts | State: evidence supports lustful intent inferred from acts; jury could find guilt beyond reasonable doubt | Sufficient evidence supported fondling and the lesser-included instruction; denial of directed verdict/JNOV and new trial affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Box v. State, 437 So.2d 19 (Miss. 1983) (outlines procedures after a discovery violation and the Box framework)
- Mills v. State, 813 So.2d 688 (Miss. 2002) (no discovery violation where witness appeared late; Box guidelines still applying)
- Russell v. State, 789 So.2d 779 (Miss. 2001) (trial court may allow interview where new evidence emerges; discretion favored)
- Voyles v. State, 822 So.2d 353 (Miss. Ct. App. 2002) (no specific date required in child abuse indictment when timing is within general range)
- Friley v. State, 879 So.2d 1031 (Miss. 2004) (lustful intent may be inferred from circumstances; fondling as lesser-included offense)
- Goodnite v. State, 799 So.2d 64 (Miss. 2001) (inference of lustful intent from actions supporting fondling)
- Coleman v. State, 915 So.2d 468 (Miss. Ct. App. 2005) (Rule 9.04 applicable when diary or similar material could be sought)