Title: Shamblin v. State

State: mississippi

Issuer: Mississippi Supreme Court

Document:

601 So. 2d 407 (1992) James T. SHAMBLIN v. STATE of Mississippi. No. 89-KA-0709. Supreme Court of Mississippi. June 3, 1992. *408 Boyd P. Atkinson, Cleveland, for appellant. Michael C. Moore, Atty. Gen., Charles W. Maris, Jr., Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee. Before HAWKINS, P.J., and PITTMAN and BANKS, JJ. HAWKINS, Presiding Justice, for the Court: James T. Shamblin appeals from his conviction in the circuit court of Bolivar County of two counts of sexual battery and two counts of touching a child for lustful purposes. He was sentenced to fifteen (15) years for the sexual battery convictions and five (5) years for the latter convictions in the Mississippi Department of Corrections, with the sentences to run concurrently. Finding no error, we affirm. James T. Shamblin and his first wife had five children, namely:[1] Edward Martin, Cynthia Lynn, Jeffrey Dale, Samuel Dean, and Amanda Clare. In 1977, when Amanda Clare was two years old, Shamblin's first wife died. Shortly thereafter he remarried a widow, and she helped rear his younger children who were still at home. Mrs. Shamblin also had children from a previous marriage. In 1988 Shamblin and Mrs. Shamblin lived in Cleveland, along with Samuel, 16, and Amanda, 13 years of age.[2] Shamblin, 56 years old, and Mrs. Shamblin were both employed by area industries. On November 16, 1988, Amanda telephoned her sister, Mrs. Cynthia Collins in Drew, reporting that Shamblin had sexually molested her; she was crying. Mrs. Collins reported the matter on the child abuse hotline, and Anita Reginelli, social worker with the Bolivar County Welfare Department, on November 18, went to Amanda's school in Cleveland and talked with Amanda. Reginelli then notified George Serio, investigator with the Cleveland *409 Police Department, who also questioned Amanda Clare. Following this Shamblin was arrested. Amanda went to her sister's home in Drew, and following a youth court hearing, stayed in Mrs. Collins's home until March 25, 1989, when she was taken to a child abuse shelter in Greenville. On November 19, 1988, William B. Profilet, M.D., a gynecologist in Cleveland, made a physical examination of Amanda, and found her hymen intact. On March 29, 1989, Amanda was counseled by Paul Davey, a child psychotherapist with the regional mental health center. Davey held a master's degree in counseling psychology from the University of Southern Mississippi. In June, 1989, he counseled her upon three separate occasions, totaling three and one-half hours in time spent with her. On April 19, 1989, the grand jury of the Second Judicial District of Bolivar County indicted Shamblin on four counts of sexual assault, namely: Trial was held June 5, 1988. Amanda testified that when she was twelve, her father rubbed his penis in her presence and asked her if she had ever seen one. She told him "no." He said, "This is my way of teaching you about sex." In October and November, 1988, her brother Samuel, a high school student, was employed at a local grocery. Mrs. Shamblin used Friday nights to do her grocery shopping for the ensuing week, and would be gone from the house an hour or two. Amanda also testified that on the Friday nights in question, Samuel was working at the store. She testified that on Friday night, October 28, the two were in the living room when Shamblin told her to go put on her mini-skirt without any panties. She did so, and she said, "He started rubbing on me and then he put his hand under my skirt and put his finger inside me." After this happened: (R. 76) On the Friday nights of November 4 and 11, Shamblin's acts consisted of rubbing her on her breasts, asking her to rub his penis, and taking her into the bathroom and standing behind her and rubbing his body up against hers. Following this, he ejaculated into the commode. Davey testified that he had in the past five years seen from 220 to 225 children who had been sexually abused, and had seen over a hundred in the past year. On direct examination he testified: On cross-examination Davey was asked if some of Amanda's other problems may have caused her emotional instability, and the following testimony elicited: On re-direct examination Davey testified that a drawing was never shown to a child until the child had related what had happened, and only at a later session would anatomical drawings be shown to a child and the child asked to select the drawing which best represented what had happened to him or her. There were 32 drawings, and Amanda Clare picked a drawing that represented her case. Davey's testimony concluded as follows: Reginelli testified that when she questioned Amanda on November 18, she hung her head, hunched her shoulders and started crying. Serio testified that when he saw Amanda that day, she was nervous, quiet, and began crying, and was upset. For the defense, Samuel testified that he was not working at the grocery store on the nights in question, but was at home, and that what Amanda had testified to did not happen. Mrs. Joyce Adams, a daughter to Mrs. Shamblin, testified that she had brought her children to the Shamblin home, and had no fear about leaving them around her stepfather. Mrs. Shamblin testified that Amanda was unhappy because she was overly strict in making the children keep their rooms clean, attend to their chores, and get to bed on time, and up early in the morning. Two letters were found in Amanda's dresser drawer after she left, both saying that she was leaving, but giving other reasons than sexual molestation by her father. Shamblin testified in his own behalf, denying that he had ever committed any of the acts with which he was charged, or acted improperly in any way towards his daughter. Shamblin sought during trial to be permitted to call Jeffrey Dale Shamblin, another older brother, and ask him: (a) whether or not he saw Amanda viewing adult films at her sister's house; (b) whether or not he heard Amanda discussing with her sister how much they were going to receive from the welfare department; and (c) whether or not he heard Mrs. Collins and another woman in Amanda's and Samuel's presence openly discussing anal and oral sex with their husbands. The circuit judge ruled the testimony as to the sexual matters was irrelevant and furthermore, even if relevant, under Rule 403 MRE would be more prejudicial than probative. Shamblin was convicted on all four counts and has prosecuted this appeal. Shamblin on appeal has two assignments of error, the second challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to convict, and the first that the court erred in refusing to permit him to offer testimony as to Amanda's opportunity to gain information about sexual matters other than her experience with her father. Addressing the second assignment first, we have at length set forth the trial testimony, and find there was sufficient evidence to support Shamblin's conviction on all four counts. The weight and credibility of the witnesses was for the jury. In this case the jury had an opportunity to hear testimony from all members of the family who had any knowledge about this case, and to observe their demeanor. Mohr v. State, 584 So. 2d 426, 431 (Miss. 1991); Dixon v. State, 519 So. 2d 1226, 1228 (Miss. 1980); Groseclose v. State, 440 So.2d *413 297, 300 (Miss. 1983); Marr v. State, 248 Miss. 281, 159 So. 2d 167 (1963). As to the circuit court's refusal to permit testimony concerning Amanda's opportunity to gain sexual information from other sources than her father, we find no abuse of discretion. The circuit judge noted that Amanda, thirteen years of age at the time of the offenses, and fourteen at trial, was of sufficient age to learn about sexual matters from any sources, and there was nothing about her testimony showing some special or unusual precocity in such matters. In Collins v. State, 513 So. 2d 877 (Miss. 1987), and Wade v. State, 583 So. 2d 965 (Miss. 1991), this Court reversed convictions of defendants accused of child molestation because of the introduction of evidence showing them in possession of pornographic materials because such evidence was more prejudicial than probative. The same principle is applicable when such evidence involves a child victim. Under Rule 403, MRE, even if such evidence were relevant, its admissibility is within the discretion of the circuit judge. We will not reverse an evidentiary ruling of the trial court unless there has been a clear abuse of discretion. Johnson v. State, 567 So. 2d 237, 238 (Miss. 1990); Hentz v. State, 542 So. 2d 914, 917 (Miss. 1989); Ivy v. State, 522 So. 2d 740, 742 (Miss. 1988). We find no reversible error and affirm. AFFIRMED. ROY NOBLE LEE, C.J., and PRATHER, ROBERTSON, SULLIVAN, PITTMAN, BANKS and McRAE, JJ., concur. DAN M. LEE, P.J., concurs in result only. [1] The names of all the children have been changed to protect the child victim. [2] Amanda was born in 1975.