Jones v. State
164 So. 3d 1009
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Eight-year-old Sarah alleged Jones, her cousin Ann's boyfriend, sexually battered her in 2009 in Yazoo County, Mississippi.
- Two incidents occurred prior to April 17, 2009: oral sex in Ann's room and on the couch at the grandmother's house.
- Sarah was examined at St. Dominic Hospital; she tested positive for trichomonas, prompting DHS and police involvement.
- May 4, 2009 forensic interview corroborated Sarah’s account; her description remained consistent.
- Jones was indicted December 2, 2009, convicted November 28–29, 2011, and sentenced to 30 years with 5 suspended and 5 on supervised probation.
- On appeal, Jones argues (I) missing age-element in instruction S-l, (II) instruction 3 constructively amended the indictment, (III) verdict against weight of the evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether omission of age-element in jury instruction was plain error | Jones asserts S-l omitted the 24-month age element. | State contends error was harmless; age element appeared in indictment. | Procedurally barred; harmless error if any. |
| Whether instruction 3 constructively amended the indictment | Jones claims language broadened proof beyond indictment. | State argues no constructive amendment; defined sexual penetration, not altering elements. | Not a reversible constructive amendment; instructions read as a whole supported conviction. |
| Whether the verdict was against the overwhelming weight of the evidence | Jones contends the record does not support the indictment as charged. | State urges substantial corroborating testimony and acts established by Sarah. | Verdict supported by substantial evidence; not against the weight of the evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bolton v. State, 113 So.3d 542 (Miss. 2013) (holds plain-error review for omission of essential element in some contexts)
- Daniels v. State, 107 So.3d 961 (Miss. 2013) (case-specific analysis of impairment when essential elements omitted)
- Rogers v. State, 95 So.3d 623 (Miss. 2012) (fatal-error/venue-type omissions evaluated case-specifically)
- Berry v. State, 728 So.2d 568 (Miss. 1999) (earlier plain-error framework for essential elements)
- Kolberg v. State, 829 So.2d 29 (Miss. 2002) (adopted harmless-error analysis for omissions in certain cases)
- Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1999) (omission of an element subject to harmless-error analysis)
- Smith v. State, 725 So.2d 922 (Miss. 1998) (standard for evaluating amendment effects on essential elements)
- Cantrell v. State, 507 So.2d 325 (Miss. 1987) (historical context on sexual penetration definitions)
- Johnson v. State, 626 So.2d 631 (Miss. 1993) (evidence sufficiency and corroboration considerations)