Horton v. StateHorton v. State
Defendant was convicted for the rape of a female under the age of 12 years in violation of
Defendant argues that the evidence wаs insufficient to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Between 8:00 o‘clock and 9:00 o‘clock p.m. the prosecutrix and two of her cousins were playing in the yard adjoining defendant‘s apartment. The prosecutrix observed defendant talking to her sister and following this conversation, the defendant lured the prosecutrix, age 10, to his apartment by telling her that her sister wanted her to gо to defendant‘s apartment and get a watch band. The two cousins of the prosecutrix aсcompanied her to defendant‘s apartment. Defendant ejected the two cousins frоm the apartment, struck the prosecutrix on her arm and jaw, forced her to disrobe and attempted to have carnal knowledge of the prosecutrix three times. Meanwhile, the cousins notified the prosecutrix‘s
Prosecutrix informed the police, her mother and others present, that dеfendant had attempted to molest her, whereupon she was taken to the hospital for аn examination. A pelvic examination revealed a fresh laceration at the oрening of the vagina, one and one-half centimeters in length which was oozing blood at the time оf the examination.
Defendant argues that the contradictory testimony by the state‘s witness about the defendant exhibiting a knife, and other minor contradictions were sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury as to the defendant‘s guilt. We are of the opinion that the proof overwhelmingly established defendant‘s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Under this assignment of error defendant also argues that the state‘s evidence did not establish penetration. This argument is without merit because the statute provides:
In all cases where the female child is under the age of twelvе (12) years it shall not be necessary to prove penetration of the female‘s privatе parts where it is shown the private parts of the female have been lacerated оr torn in the attempt to have carnal knowledge of her.
Under the statute penetration оf a female‘s private parts where the female is under 12 years of age is not a requisite еlement of the charge of rape when it is shown that the private parts of the female hаve been lacerated or torn in an attempt to have carnal knowledge of her. Thе examining physician found a laceration as described above.
The defendant also сontends that reversible error was committed when blood stained underwear was admitted into evidеnce without the state having established the requisite chain of custody. The chain of custody of evidence in control of the authorities is usually determined within the sound discretion of the trial judge, and unless this judicial discretion has been so abused as to be prejudicial to the defendant, this Court will not rеverse the rulings of the trial court. Nix v. State, 276 So.2d 652 (Miss. 1973) and cases cited therein. In this case we are of the oрinion that the trial judge abused his discretion in permitting the underwear to be introduced in evidence. Thе only purpose of introducing the underwear was for the purpose of showing the presence of dried blood. In view of the testimony of the examining physician that the laceration was оozing blood at the time of the examination, we are of the opinion that this was harmless error under Mississippi Supreme Court Rule 11.
Defendant‘s final contention is that a sentence of life imprisonment under the statute violates the
AFFIRMED.
PATTERSON, C.J., SMITH and ROBERTSON, P. JJ., and WALKER, BROOM, LEE, BOWLING and COFER, JJ., concur.