Evans v. StateEvans v. State
- Reporters:
- ,
- Before:
- Ishee, King, Chandler, Lee, Myers, Bridges, Irving, Griffis, Barnes
ISHEE, J., for the Court.
¶ 1. In January 2003, the Appellant, Morris Evans (“Morris“), was convicted of “statutory rape” in the Circuit Court of Claiborne County. Morris was sentenced to thirty years with the Mississippi Department of Corrections (“MDOC“), with twenty years to serve and ten years suspended. Aggrieved by his conviction and sentence, Morris аppeals. Finding no error, we affirm.
FACTS
¶ 2. On February 2, 2002, Morris received a call from his cousin, the victim, requesting that he give her a ride to her boyfriend‘s home. Morris picked her up in his vehicle, and while en route to her boyfriend‘s home, pulled the vehicle over, forcefully performed oral sex on hеr, and raped her. The victim went to the hospital to have a rape kit performed the next day. The results of the DNA analysis performed as a result of that rape kit did not exclude Morris as the source of the DNA subsequently identified.
¶ 3. Morris was indicted in January 2003 for the crime of “statutory rape,” whiсh the indictment identified as “willfully, unlawfully, feloniously and forcibly rap[ing] and ravish[ing the victim] without consent and against [her] will ... contrary to and in violation of
¶ 4. The jury found Morris guilty of “statutory rape,” as per jury instruction S-3, and Morris was sentenced to thirty years with the MDOC, serving twenty years and with ten years suspended. Aggrieved, Morris appeals, asserting that: (1) the indictment was not sufficient to notify him that he was being prosecuted for “statutory rape“; (2) the evidence presentеd at trial did not meet the requirements of the statutory rape statute; (3) the trial court committed reversible error by denying his motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict; and (4) the sentence imposed upon him by the trial court was arbitrary.
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
I. Whether the indictment was sufficient to notify Morris that he was being prosecuted for “statutory rape.”
¶ 5. We first note that the issue of whether an indictment is so flawed as to warrant reversal is a question of law and allows this Court a broad standard of review. Steen v. State, 873 So.2d 155, 161(¶ 21) (Miss.Ct.App.2004) (citing Peterson v. State, 671 So.2d 647, 652 (Miss. 1996)). The primary purpose of an indictment is to notify a defendant of the charges against him so as to allow him to prepare an adequate defense. See Lewis v. State, 897 So.2d 994, 996(¶ 9) (Miss.Ct. App.2004). All that is required is that the indictment provide “a concise and clear statement of the elements of the crimes
¶ 6. The indictment in this case labeled the charge against Morris as “statutory rape,” but went on to list the elements of forcible rape. In addition, the indictment erroneously listed
II. Whether the evidence presented at trial met the requirements of the statutory rape statute.
¶ 7. Morris next contends that the evidеnce presented at trial was insufficient to support a conviction for “statutory rape.” Because, as stated above, we find that the mere mislabeling of the crime as “statutory rape” did not prejudice Morris, as the elements of forcible rape were clearly set forth in the indictment and jury instruction S-3, this assignment of error is without merit. Were the crime with which Morris was charged actually “statutory rape,” this argument would potentiаlly prove valid. The crime of “statutory rape” is defined in
(a) Any person seventeen (17) years of age or older has sexual intercourse with а child who:
(i) Is at least fourteen (14) but under sixteen (16) years of age;
(ii) Is thirty-six (36) or more months younger than the person; and
(iii) Is not the person‘s spouse; or
(b) A person of any age has sexual intercourse with a child who:
(i) Is under the age of fourteen (14) years;
(ii) Is twenty-four (24) or more months younger than the person; and
(iii) Is not the person‘s spouse.
III. Whether the trial court committed reversible error by denying Morris‘s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
¶ 8. The standard of review in determining whethеr a trial court properly denied a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict in a criminal case concerns the sufficiency of the evidence at the time of such denial. Withers v. State, 907 So.2d 342, 350-51(¶ 24) (Miss.2005). “The evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the State. All credible evidence supporting the conviction is taken as true; the State receives the benefit of all favorable inferences reasonably drawn from the evidence.” Id. (citatiоns omitted). “Only where the evidence, as to at least one of the elements of the crime charged, is such that a reasonable and fair mindеd jury could only find the accused not guilty, will this Court reverse.” Id.
¶ 9. As discussed above, the evidence at trial clearly supported a conviction for every element of forcible rape. Evidence was presented that Morris forcibly raped the victim against her will and without her consent. Furthermore, the DNA evidence presented in the case did not exclude Morris as a suspect. Thus, the evidence was sufficient to allow a reasоnable and fair minded jury to find the defendant guilty of the crime charged. As such, we find this assignment of error without merit.
IV. Whether the sentence imposed upon Morris by the trial court was arbitrary.
¶ 10. A conviction for forcible rape allows a jury to sentence a defendant up to life imprisonment. See
¶ 11. THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CLAIBORNE COUNTY OF CONVICTION OF STATUTORY RAPE AND SENTENCE OF THIRTY YEARS, WITH TWENTY YEARS TO SERVE IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND TEN YEARS SUSPENDED, IS AFFIRMED. ALL COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO CLAIBORNE COUNTY.
KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., BRIDGES, IRVING, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS AND BARNES, JJ., CONCUR.