Weeks v. State, 123 So. 3d 373

Defendant Malcolm Weeks Sr. was charged with two counts of sexual battery and two counts of child fondling for alleged sexual abuse of his 14‑year‑old daughter; convictions: two sexual‑battery counts and one child‑fondling count.
Allegations: multiple incidents from ~June–September 2010, including cunnilingus, digital and penile contact, and use of a vibrator; victim disclosed to family, police, hospital personnel, and a forensic interviewer.
Forensic testing (Y‑chromosome) detected male DNA on vaginal and vulvar swabs and could not exclude Malcolm or his patrilineal relatives as the contributor.
At trial the indictment’s sexual‑battery counts originally tracked the wrong statutory subsection (d, for <14) despite alleging the victim was 14; the State moved to amend to subsection (c) (14–15 years, 36+ months older) and the court allowed the amendment over objection.
Defense was limited: Malcolm denied wrongdoing, volunteered cooperation with investigators, and testified as the sole defense witness.
Jury sentenced Weeks to concurrent and consecutive terms totaling effectively 45 years with probation and sex‑offender registration; he appealed raising three issues.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether indictment was substantively amended	State: amendment corrected a form error to reflect correct subsection for a 14‑year‑old victim	Weeks: changing subsection and age threshold was a substantive amendment that prejudiced him	Amendment was one of form; indictment gave adequate notice (birthdates, dates, and alleged victim age); amendment permitted
Sufficiency of evidence for convictions	State: victim testimony corroborated by multiple disclosures and DNA evidence was sufficient to prove fondling and sexual penetration	Weeks: evidence was insufficient to support convictions	Evidence sufficient; JNOV properly denied
Whether verdicts were against overwhelming weight of evidence (new trial)	State: consistent disclosures, forensic evidence, and credibility supported verdicts	Weeks: verdicts against weight of evidence warranting new trial	No abuse of discretion; verdicts not against overwhelming weight; new trial properly denied

Patton v. State, 109 So.3d 66 (Miss. 2012) (standard for indictment amendment and prejudice test)
Smith v. State, 989 So.2d 973 (Miss. Ct. App. 2008) (indictment sufficient despite tracking statutory language ambiguities when dates/birthdays provide notice)
McClain v. State, 625 So.2d 774 (Miss. 1993) (prejudice test for indictment amendments)
Givens v. State, 730 So.2d 81 (Miss. Ct. App. 1998) (amendment changing date of alleged crime held form not substance)
Brady v. State, 722 So.2d 151 (Miss. Ct. App. 1998) (cunnilingus as sexual penetration sufficient for conviction)
Golden v. State, 984 So.2d 1026 (Miss. Ct. App. 2008) (child’s testimony of oral contact supports fondling/penetration convictions)
Weatherspoon v. State, 56 So.3d 559 (Miss. 2011) (standard for weighing evidence on new‑trial motions)
Ben v. State, 95 So.3d 1236 (Miss. 2012) (articulating when reversal is required under sufficiency review and weight standards)