Jimmy T. Brown v. State of Mississippi
226 So. 3d 102
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Appellant Jimmy T. Brown was tried in DeSoto County for two counts of fondling his granddaughter (one when she was under 18; one when she was under 16) and convicted by a jury.
- Victim V.B. testified the abuse occurred repeatedly when she was roughly 8–13 and again 16–19; she could not recall precise dates due to the recurring nature of the acts.
- Police used a recorded phone call between Brown and V.B.’s mother (in which Brown admitted inappropriate contact) and a recorded custodial interrogation in which Brown made additional admissions.
- Brown moved to suppress the recordings and later sought JNOV/new trial and alleged ineffective assistance of counsel; the trial court denied relief and imposed consecutive sentences (10 years suspended with 10 years PRS on Count I; 5 years MDOC on Count II) plus restitution.
- On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed convictions, upheld admissibility of recordings, found the indictment adequate despite lack of exact dates, declined to resolve ineffective-assistance claims on direct appeal, and remanded to correct a clerical error in the written sentencing order.
Issues
| Issue | Brown's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Indictment sufficiency | Indictment defective for lacking specific dates and thus inadequate notice | Indictment tracked statute, gave time windows and ages; specific dates not required when victim cannot recall | Affirmed — indictment adequate; tracked statutory language and gave fair notice |
| Sufficiency/weight of evidence | No proof of victim’s age at acts or precise acts; verdict against overwhelming weight | Victim testimony + Brown’s admissions satisfied elements beyond a reasonable doubt | Affirmed — evidence sufficient and verdict not against overwhelming weight |
| Motion to suppress recordings | Phone call and interrogation should be excluded (Miranda/privacy violations; interrogation involuntary) | Phone call was non‑custodial and one‑party consent to recording; interrogation waiver was knowing and voluntary | Affirmed — no reasonable expectation of privacy in recorded call; waiver and voluntariness of custodial statements upheld |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | Counsel failed to move to suppress phone call, object to leading questions, and seek change of venue | Record is inadequate on direct appeal to resolve IAC claims | Not reached on merits — declined on direct appeal; preserved for post‑conviction review |
Key Cases Cited
- Tapper v. State, 47 So. 3d 95 (Miss. 2010) (standard of review for indictment defects)
- Berry v. State, 996 So. 2d 782 (Miss. 2008) (indictment must state essential elements and inform defendant)
- Batiste v. State, 121 So. 3d 808 (Miss. 2013) (indictment tracking statutory language is generally sufficient)
- Morris v. State, 595 So. 2d 840 (Miss. 1991) (specific date not required if defendant fairly informed of charges)
- Wilson v. State, 515 So. 2d 1181 (Miss. 1987) (importance of specific dates when possible)
- Bush v. State, 895 So. 2d 836 (Miss. 2005) (standard for sufficiency and weighing evidence in criminal cases)
- Everett v. State, 248 So. 2d 439 (Miss. 1971) (one‑party consent to recording does not violate Fourth Amendment privacy)
- Wilcher v. State, 863 So. 2d 776 (Miss. 2003) (when ineffective‑assistance claims may be decided on direct appeal)