Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Walker v. State

Court of Appeals of Mississippi

June 19, 2018

DOUGLAS WALKER A/K/A DOUGLAS L. WALKER A/K/A DOUGLAS LAMAR WALKER APPELLANT
v.
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE

         DATE OF JUDGMENT: 08/20/2015

          BOLIVAR COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT HON. JOHNNIE E. WALLS JR. TRIAL JUDGE.

          ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: OFFICE OF STATE PUBLIC DEFENDER BY: JUSTIN TAYLOR COOK

          ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: ALICIA MARIE AINSWORTH

          DISTRICT ATTORNEY: BRENDA FAY MITCHELL

         EN BANC.

          FAIR, J.

         ¶1. Douglas Walker was convicted of one count of sexual battery and one count of fondling, both stemming from sexual contact with the eight-year-old daughter of his girlfriend. On appeal, Walker contends that his convictions were not supported by substantial evidence and that his two convictions should be merged because one is a lesser-included offense of the other. We find no merit to these contentions, and so we affirm Walker's convictions.

         FACTS

         ¶2. On September 22, 2012, eight-year-old "Amy"[1] had spent the day with her adult stepsister, Leslie Horton. As Horton pulled up to Amy's home to drop her off, Amy told Horton that she did not want to leave the car until her mother came home because Walker, her mother's live-in boyfriend, was there. When Horton asked why, Amy told her that Walker "puts his private inside of her and makes her go up and down." Horton then called Debbie Williams, Amy's aunt, and they met up. Amy told Williams that Walker "touches [her] and makes [her] go up and down on him"; she also said that "sometimes when her mother was not at home [Walker] would touch her private areas." Williams and Horton then took Amy to the hospital and contacted the police. Amy was later examined by Stacey Carter, a nurse practitioner specializing in pediatric forensic medicine at the University of Mississippi Medical Center. Carter noted that Amy had redness on her labia majora, but her examination was otherwise normal. Amy also disclosed the abuse to Katrina Kennedy, a forensic examiner, and a video recording of the interview was entered into evidence at the trial.

         DISCUSSION

         1. Indictments

         ¶3. Walker contends that his indictments were "woefully inadequate and failed to satisfy the notice requirements" of Rule 7.06 of the Uniform Rules of Circuit and County Court Practice, [2] which at the time provided that "[t]he indictment upon which the defendant is to be tried shall be a plain, concise, and definite written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charges and shall fully notify the defendant of the nature and cause of the accusation."

         ¶4. Count I of the indictment charged Walker with sexual battery in violation of Mississippi Code Annotated section 97-3-95(1) (Rev. 2014) and alleged that Walker "did unlawfully, wilfully, and feloniously engage in sexual penetration with [Amy], a female child under the age of fourteen (14) years, by inserting his penis and/or finger(s) and/or palm into her genital opening and/or vagina." Count II charged Walker with fondling, also known as molestation or gratification of lust, in violation of section 97-5-23(1) (Rev. 2014). It alleged that Walker "did unlawf[u]lly, wilfully, and feloniously, for the purpose of gratifying his lust or indulging his depraved licentious sexual desires, handle, touch or rub with his hands and/or penis, the vagina or genital area and/or buttock and/or back and body of [Amy], a female child under the age of sixteen (16)."

         ¶5. We must first note that Walker failed to object to the form of the indictment, and this issue is therefore waived on appeal. Pustay v. State, 221 So.3d 320, 353 (¶109) (Miss. Ct. App. 2016). Nonetheless, we will address the merits of the issue.

         ¶6. The gist of Walker's complaint seems to be that the indictments were overly broad in alleging the manner or means by which he violated the respective statutes; he complains about the number of "ors" and "and/ors" when describing what he touched or penetrated, and with what. But it is a well-established axiom of law that "where an indictment tracks the language of the statute, the indictment sufficiently puts the defendant on notice of the charges against him in order to prepare his defense." Jenkins v. State, 101 So.3d 161, 165 (¶10) (Miss. Ct. App. 2012) (quoting Hicks v. State, 40 So.3d 640, 642 (¶9) (Miss. Ct. App. 2010)). Thus, when an indictment tracks the language of the Mississippi Code, it complies with Rule 7.06. See Graves v. State, 216 So.3d 1152, 1159 (ΒΆ12) (Miss. 2016). The indictment here tracks the statutory language for each offense, provides the time range and location ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.