Westbrook v. State
109 So. 3d 609
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Westbrook was convicted of child molestation and enticement of a child for sexual purposes and sentenced to 15 and 20 years respectively, with consecutive terms totaling 27 years in MDOC custody, plus fines and post-release requirements.
- He initially pled guilty to enticement in 2005, but the molestation count was dropped; after post-conviction relief the guilty plea was set aside due to indictment defect and he was re-indicted in 2010, with a jury trial in 2011.
- Prior to trial, Westbrook moved to suppress testimony from two nephews about distant sexual abuse; the court overruled the motion, allowing the testimony with limiting instructions under Rule 408.
- John Smith testified as the victim about Westbrook’s conduct, including touching and kissing; correspondence and gifts suggested ongoing contact and potential meeting for sexual activity.
- Two nephews testified about extensive past sexual abuse by Westbrook; the court gave limiting instructions that the evidence showed motive, opportunity, intent, etc., and not that Westbrook acted in conformity with past acts.
- At sentencing, Westbrook received prison terms to serve consecutively, with fines, sex-offender registration, and no-contact orders.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for enticement | Westbrook contends no proof of a meeting; no definite plan. | The letter and intent to meet satisfied elements of enticement. | Sufficient evidence supported conviction. |
| Admission of prior sexual acts (Ettinger/Wayne) under Rule 404(b) | Evidence relevant to motive/intent; properly admitted with limiting instructions. | Remoteness and lack of similarity render improper prejudice. | Not an abuse of discretion; admissible with proper limiting instructions. |
Key Cases Cited
- Shaffer v. State, 72 So.3d 1070 (Miss. 2011) (solicitation can violate 97-5-33(6) and complete the offense)
- Gore v. State, 37 So.3d 1178 (Miss. 2010) (remoteness not fatal; Rule 404(b) with Rule 403 and limiting instruction)
- Young v. State, 106 So.3d 775 (Miss. 2012) (prior acts admissible to show motive/intent with limiting instruction)
- Derouen v. State, 994 So.2d 748 (Miss. 2008) (prior sexual acts may be admissible for listed purposes)
- Shanklin v. State, 290 So.2d 625 (Miss. 1974) (intent can be inferred from acts and declarations)