Faulkner v. State

32 Citing cases

  1. Collins v. State

    305 So. 3d 1262 (Miss. Ct. App. 2020)   Cited 7 times
    Noting that the constructive amendment did not affect the trial’s fairness because the amendment would not change the defense’s theory

    Applying the plain-error doctrine, this Court has held that a variance is not "plain error" if it does not prejudice the defendant's defense at trial or deny his right to a fair trial. SeeFaulkner v. State , 109 So. 3d 142, 147 (¶18) (Miss. Ct. App. 2013) ; Young v. State , 271 So. 3d 650, 657 (¶28) (Miss. Ct. App. 2018), cert. dismissed , 272 So. 3d 132 (Miss. 2019) ; Mendez v. State , No. 2019-KA-00430-COA, ––– So.3d ––––, ––––, 2020 WL 5089429, at *7 (¶37) (Miss.

  2. Mendez v. State

    309 So. 3d 1109 (Miss. Ct. App. 2020)   Cited 3 times

    Under these circumstances, "[w]here a party has forfeited an objection by failing to urge it at trial, an appellate court may exercise discretion to correct the error—but only where the error is clear or obvious and affects the party's substantial rights." Faulkner v. State , 109 So. 3d 142, 146-47 (¶15) (Miss. Ct. App. 2013). Mendez also asserts that his conviction under Count 4 should be reversed for the same reason, but the record reflects that there was no variance between Count 4 of the indictment and the elements instruction for that count (jury instruction number 11).

  3. Young v. State

    271 So. 3d 650 (Miss. Ct. App. 2018)   Cited 8 times

    Again, "the primary purpose of an indictment ‘is to give the defendant fair notice of the crime charged.’ " Faulkner v. State , 109 So.3d 142, 146 (¶ 13) (Miss. Ct. App. 2013) (quoting Nix v. State , 8 So.3d 141, 144-45 (¶ 16) (Miss. 2009) ).

  4. Stewart v. State

    228 So. 3d 872 (Miss. Ct. App. 2017)   Cited 5 times
    In Stewart, this Court held that the indictment "specifie[d] each offense and corresponding statute, provide[d] the date and location of each offense, identifie[d] the victim and the ages of the victim and the defendant, and note[d] that the acts were committed willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously."

    " Id."[W]here sufficient evidence exits to support separate and distinct acts of fondling and sexual battery, separate indictable charges can properly stand without implicating jeopardy issues ... even if the criminal acts are closely connected or based on a common nucleus of fact[.]" Faulkner v. State, 109 So.3d 142, 148 (¶ 21) (Miss. Ct. App. 2013). ¶ 12. Under Mississippi law, sexual battery and molestation are separate and distinct criminal offenses.

  5. Graham v. State

    185 So. 3d 992 (Miss. 2016)   Cited 37 times
    Showing that a delay of eight months or more is presumptively prejudicial

    Though the language of the indictment does not precisely track the evidence produced at trial, the difference did not affect his defense strategy of consent. The Court of Appeals handled a similar case in Faulkner v. State, 109 So.3d 142 (Miss.Ct.App.2013). Therein, the indictment charged the defendant, David R. Faulkner, with, inter alia, violating Mississippi Code Section 97–1–6 by directing a minor child to commit sexual battery upon another minor child.

  6. Baucom v. State

    No. 2023-KA-00516-COA (Miss. Ct. App. Jun. 18, 2024)

    Mosby, 134 So.3d 850 at 853 (¶11) (quoting Faulkner v. State, 109 So.3d 142, 149 (¶28) (Miss. Ct. App. 2013)).

  7. Herrera v. State

    387 So. 3d 108 (Miss. Ct. App. 2024)

    However, "[w]hile trial judges should generally strive to craft jury instructions that track the indictment’s language, an instruction is not necessarily fatally defective for failure to do so if the instruction ‘accurately follows the requisite elements of the crime.’ " Faulkner v. State, 109 So. 3d 142, 147 (¶16) (Miss. Ct. App. 2013) (quoting Duplantis v. State, 708 So. 2d 1327, 1344 (¶76) (Miss. 1998)).

  8. Anderson v. State

    293 So. 3d 279 (Miss. Ct. App. 2019)   Cited 10 times
    Holding that "[b]ecause Anderson's sentences were within the statutory limits there [was] no inference of ‘gross disproportionality,’ " and therefore this Court was "not bound to undertake a proportionality analysis"

    An appellate court may exercise its discretion to review an issue for plain error "only where the error is clear or obvious and affects the party's substantial rights." Faulkner v. State , 109 So. 3d 142, 147 (¶15) (Miss. Ct. App. 2013). We assess the legal sufficiency of the evidence by determining "whether the evidence shows ‘beyond a reasonable doubt that [the] accused committed the act charged, and that he did so under such circumstances that every element of the offense existed.’ "

  9. Shoemaker v. State

    256 So. 3d 604 (Miss. Ct. App. 2018)   Cited 14 times
    In Shoemaker v. State, 256 So.3d 604, 612 (¶¶28-29) (Miss. Ct. App. 2018), we found that the State could not provide a more definite time frame for the alleged offenses than it already had in the indictment. The victim in that case testified to sexual abuse that occurred over a five to seven-year time span when she was between five and twelve years old.

    While sexual battery of a child requires some sort of penetration[,] ... unlawful touching does not." Faulkner v. State , 109 So.3d 142, 147 (¶ 20) (Miss. Ct. App. 2013). "[U]nder ‘particular circumstances[,]’ when penetration is achieved by touching a child under the age of fourteen, fondling or molestation is a lesser-included offense of sexual battery.

  10. Pustay v. State

    221 So. 3d 320 (Miss. Ct. App. 2016)   Cited 20 times
    Rejecting defendant's assertion that the indictment, which contained multiple sexual abuse offenses and alleged nine-month time frames with respect to each offense, hampered defendant's ability to prepare a defense where the child victim testified that she could not remember dates well and the record reflected that the State had no other information to further narrow down the time period in each count

    While sexual battery of a child requires some sort of penetration—including fellatio—unlawful touching does not." Faulkner v. State , 109 So.3d 142, 147 (¶ 20) (Miss.Ct.App.2013).¶ 115.