Sea v. State, 49 So. 3d 614

Sea was charged in a nine-count indictment in Yalobusha County for statutory rape and sexual battery; the jury acquitted him on three statutory-rape counts and one sexual-battery count, but convicted him on five sexual-battery counts.
Sea’s counsel, without a pretrial motion or ruling, introduced two of Sea’s prior sexual-battery convictions from 1984 and 1988, which were well over ten years old.
Four videotaped forensic interviews of the four young victims were admitted and played for the jury over defense objections; defense did not contemporaneously object to admission.
There was no physical evidence of abuse; the case largely rested on the children’s testimony and the videotapes, which the State{ A0}s witnesses described as molested victims.
Sea testified about his prior convictions, including the two long-ago sex-crime convictions; trial cross-examination extensively covered these prior offenses.
Sea appealed on three grounds: (1) admissibility of the tender-years hearsay; (2) weight of the evidence; (3) ineffective assistance of counsel.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of tender-years videotapes	Sea argues the court erred in admitting the videotapes as hearsay.	Sea contends failure to timely object and lack of proper 803(25) hearing undermines admissibility.	Waived on appeal due to failure to contemporaneously object; harmless if any error.
Whether verdicts were against the overwhelming weight of the evidence	Sea claims the verdicts were against the weight of the evidence given lack of physical evidence.	State argues evidence including four victims and videotapes supports the verdict.	Convictions supported; verdict not against the weight of the evidence.
Ineffective assistance of counsel due to admission of prior convictions	Sea argues his counsel was ineffective for introducing long-ago convictions without proper motion or balancing.	State contends strategic choice and overwhelming evidence render no prejudice.	Sea’s counsel was ineffective; reversal and remand for new trial are warranted.

Smith v. State, 797 So.2d 854 (Miss. 2001) (timely objection required to preserve error)
Gore v. State, 37 So.3d 1178 (Miss. 2010) (limiting instructions when Rule 404(b) evidence is admitted)
Read v. State, 430 So.2d 841 (Miss. 1983) (ineffective-assistance issues can be raised on direct appeal with evidentiary hearing later)
Colenburg v. State, 735 So.2d 1099 (Miss. Ct. App. 1999) (ineffective-assistance issues should be developed with factual findings and potential remand)
Williams v. State, 3 So.3d 105 (Miss. 2009) (totality-of-the-circumstances standard for evaluating trial counsel performance)
Leatherwood v. State, 473 So.2d 964 (Miss. 1985) (admissibility and prejudice considerations in impeachment evidence)