Case Title: Stokes v. State

Citation: 484 So. 2d 1022

Docket Number: 55339

State: mississippi

Court: Mississippi Supreme Court

Date: 1986-02-26T00:00:00Z

Document:
484 So. 2d 1022 (1986) Charles Lee STOKES v. STATE of Mississippi. No. 55339. Supreme Court of Mississippi. February 26, 1986. *1023 Phil R. Hinton, Wilson & Hinton, Corinth, for appellant. Edwin Lloyd Pittman, Atty. Gen., by Marvin L. White, Jr., Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee. Before PATTERSON, C.J., and HAWKINS and PRATHER, JJ. HAWKINS, Justice, for the Court: Charles Lee Stokes appeals from his conviction of forcible rape in the circuit court of Alcorn County and sentence to life imprisonment. Because the circuit judge refused to declare a mistrial in this most unusual trial situation, we reverse. Stokes was indicted by the Alcorn County grand jury for forcible rape of Regina Stewart on March 13, 1982. She was his stepdaughter and 13 years of age at the time. In its voir dire examination of the jury, the state revealed the victim had undergone an abortion, and asked the jury about its effect on them: R. 39-41. When the jury had been selected by both sides, the state made the following motion: R. 67-68. Following argument the court sustained the motion. The defense then moved for a mistrial, which was overruled. R. 72 Defense counsel then asked the court if he was being prohibited from inquiring about prior sexual conduct between the prosecuting witness and Stokes, and the court told him he was. The defense was then permitted to make a profert of what they would prove if permitted to do so. There ensued a rambling discourse, none of which we find would have been relevant had knowledge of the abortion not been revealed to the jury in the first place. Nor do we perceive any benefit to the defendant had it been offered with the jury's knowledge there had been an abortion. Two errors have been assigned on appeal: first, the court should have sustained the motion for a mistrial; second, the court erred in sustaining the state's motion in limine. The conduct of the prosecution and defense is perplexing. We do not understand the state's reasoning or desire to mention to the jury, in the first place, that this child had undergone an abortion. It is manifest that in the absence of some showing of its relevance, evidence of the abortion was inadmissible. *1025 It would likewise appear that the defense would object strongly to any evidence pertaining to an abortion of a thirteen-year-old girl.[1] Yet here we have the state informing the jury on voir dire that the victim had an abortion, and the defense offering no objection. Defense counsel's rationale for wanting to explore this evidence before the jury escapes us. It was irrelevant under the facts of this record. It was prejudicial; it should never have been mentioned. The state did bring the matter out on voir dire, however. Having opened the subject for speculation, the state should not have been permitted to shut the door. In a trial, neither party should be permitted to limit the jury's view to a cheesecake picture. Limited to this statement by the prosecution on voir dire, the jury could very well have concluded that not only did Stokes rape the child, he made her pregnant as well, either on April 13, 1982, or at some other time. Elementary to all trial proceedings is the proposition that the occurrence of any prejudicially incompetent matter or misconduct before a jury, the damaging effect of which cannot be removed by admonition or instructions, necessitates a mistrial. Smith v. State, 198 So. 2d 220, 223 (Miss. 1967); Buchanan v. State, 204 Miss. 304, 37 So. 2d 318 (1948). Indeed, under some circumstances the circuit judge of his own motion is required to direct a mistrial. Anderson v. State, 332 So. 2d 420, 425 (Miss. 1976). The circuit judge should have sustained the motion for a mistrial under the posture of the case with which he was confronted. The only way the information elicited by the state could have avoided prejudicing the defendant would have been a concession by the state that Stokes had nothing to do with making his step-daughter pregnant, a concession we would surmise the state most unwilling to make. We also make clear that because the defendant made no objection to the statement to the jury, and indeed appears to have been desirous of, and indeed an accessory to the trial development, reversal of this case is without prejudice to retrial upon the same charge and indictment. In view of our conclusion, there is no need to address the second assignment of error. REVERSED AND REMANDED. PATTERSON, C.J., WALKER and ROY NOBLE LEE, P.JJ., and DAN M. LEE, PRATHER, ROBERTSON, SULLIVAN and ANDERSON, JJ., concur. [1] In fairness to the circuit judge he no doubt thought when the state brought out the abortion on voir dire and the defense offered no objection that both sides deemed it relevant and its pertinence would be developed in the course of trial.