Case Title: Hyde v. State

Citation: 413 So. 2d 1042

Docket Number: 

State: mississippi

Court: Mississippi Supreme Court

Date: 1982-05-19T00:00:00Z

Document:
413 So. 2d 1042 (1982) Anthony Henry HYDE v. STATE of Mississippi. No. 53424. Supreme Court of Mississippi. May 19, 1982. *1043 Richard W. Hamilton, Pascagoula, for appellant. Bill Allain, Atty. Gen. by Frankie Walton White, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee. Before WALKER, P.J., and ROY NOBLE LEE and DAN M. LEE, JJ. DAN M. LEE, Justice, for the Court: This is an appeal from the Circuit Court of Jackson County wherein Anthony Henry Hyde, defendant/appellant, was indicted, tried and convicted upon a charge of rape. Upon conviction, Hyde was sentenced to a term of twenty-five years in the Mississippi Department of Corrections after the jury failed to affix his punishment at life. We affirm. On October 23, 1980, appellant and his brother Michael Hyde, drove to 4027 West Pine Street in Moss Point, Mississippi, between 10:00 and 10:30 a.m. According to appellant and his brother, the purpose of this visit was to purchase marijuana from Elliot Lett, the occupant of the house, so appellant would have something to smoke during a bus ride to Chicago. Appellant parked his automobile in Lett's front yard and then proceeded to the door. The prosecutrix, Lett's 17-year-old live-in companion, answered the door and informed appellant Lett was at school and would not be home until 12:00 p.m. Appellant then left. Appellant returned to Lett's house alone approximately one hour later. When the prosecutrix told appellant Lett had not returned home, appellant forced his way into the house, wielding a gun. He began ransacking the house asking the prosecutrix where Lett kept his dope. When appellant was unable to find any drugs, he grabbed the prosecutrix. After a brief struggle, the appellant forced himself upon the prosecutrix and raped her. When Lett arrived home, he found his house in shambles and the prosecutrix crying in the bedroom. Lett took her to his grandmother's house, which was next door, where she bathed, and the police were summoned. The prosecutrix identified appellant from nine photographs as the person who raped her. An examination at the Singing River Hospital that afternoon revealed that she had recently engaged in sexual intercourse. Hair samples taken from the appellant and the prosecutrix's clothing were compared in the F.B.I. laboratory. All twenty individual characteristics identified in appellant's hair matched the characteristics of the hair taken from the victim's clothing. Appellant voluntarily surrendered to the police on November 11, 1980, shortly after returning from Chicago. He denied that it was he who raped the prosecutrix. In Sadler v. State, 407 So. 2d 95 (Miss. 1981), this Court stated: The evidence in the case at bar was conflicting. The state's evidence tended to prove that appellant committed the rape, while he denied he committed the offense. The testimony of the prosecutrix was corroborated by the testimony of Vicki Lowery who saw appellant at Lett's house on two occasions on the day the rape occurred, and also by Elliot Lett, Kenneth Smith and detective Gary Jones' testimony as to the condition of the house following the rape. The prosecutrix positively identified appellant as her attacker. The rape examination revealed scratches and scrapes around the prosecutrix's neck as well as evidence of recent sexual intercourse. Moreover, hair samples taken from the prosecutrix's clothes compared remarkably with hair samples taken from appellant's head. The conflict in the evidence was for the jury's resolution. The evidence was more than sufficient to support the verdict of the jury. Appellant, during cross-examination, was asked by the district attorney to step down from the witness stand and display the condition of his teeth to the jury. On appeal, he argues the effect of this action was to bolster the state's case and prejudiced the jury against him due to the fact that there was no evidence before the jury as to the condition of the assailant's teeth. In King v. State, 230 So. 2d 209 (Miss. 1970), which involved felonious possession of narcotic drugs, defendant, after taking the witness stand, was compelled to exhibit his arm to the jury, showing festered bumps on his arm. We stated: Appellant having voluntarily taken the witness stand in his own defense was not prejudiced by being required to exhibit the condition of his teeth to the jury. Based on the foregoing, this case is affirmed. AFFIRMED. PATTERSON, C.J., SUGG and WALKER, P. JJ., and BROOM, ROY NOBLE LEE, BOWLING, HAWKINS and DARDEN, JJ., concur.