I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 0 7 - KA- 0 1 6 4 3 - S CT GUS W I LKI NS, J R. v. STATE OFM

I SS I SS I PPI D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 09/ 06/ 2007 TRI AL J UDG E: HON . LE E J . HOW ARD COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: LOW NDES COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT A TTO RN EY S FO R A PPELL A N T: W . D A N I EL H I N CH CL I FF LESL I E S. LEE AT T OR NE Y F OR AP P E L L E E : OF F I CE OF T HE AT T OR NE Y GE NE RA L BY: BI LL Y L. GORE DI S T RI CT AT T OR NE Y: F OR RE S T AL L GOOD NAT UR E OF T HE CA S E : CR I M I NAL - F E L ONY D I SPO SI T I O N : A FFIRM E D - 12/ 04/ 2008 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D: B E F O R E SM I T H , C . J. , C A R L SO N A N D R A N D O L P H , JJ. RAN DO LPH, J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. Gu s W i l k i n s , J r . wa s i n d i c t e d f o rt h e s e x u a l b a t t e r y o f s i x t e e n - y e a r - o l d M . B. Fol l owi ng a j ury tr i a l i n the Ci r c ui tCour tof Low nd e s County, M i s s i s s i pp i , W i l ki ns w as f ound gui l ty and s ent ence d t o tw enty year s i n the cus t ody of the M i s s i s s i ppi D epart m entof C orr ect i ons ( “M D O C ”) , f ol l ow ed by f

i ve yea r s pos t - r el eas e s upervi s i on. Fol l ow i ng deni al o f h is p o st-tria l m o tio n s, W ilk in s file d n o tice o f a p p e a l.

### M.B . testified th at Geraldlivedin th e same apartment comp lex as G loria W ilkin s. 1 

### M.B. te stif

ie d that t hey we reapproxim at ely twe nty f ee t away. 2 

### 2 FACTS ¶2 . O n Ju ly 2 6 , 2 0 0 6 , M . B . w as in tro d u c e d to th irty -y e a r-o ld W il k ins b y h is m o ther, G l or i a W i l ki ns . A ccor di ng t o M . B . , G l or i a tol d herthatW i l ki ns w as hercous i n. T he f ol l ow i ng eveni ng, atappr oxi m at el y 9: 30 or10: 00 p. m . , M . B . arr i ved at Sim s ScottPar k. Shor t l y ther eaf

t er , M . B . senta t extm es s age t o hercousi n, D emet r i us P al m er , re ques t i ng t hat he pi ck herup. M . B . t es t i f i ed thatPal m er“t ol d m e he w oul d be ther e i n a mi nut e . . . . B ut it to o k a lo n g tim e , s o I t e x te d h im a n d to ld h im th a t I w o u ld w a lk .” A c c o rd in g to M .B .: [ w] h e n I s t a r t e d t o wa l k , [ W i l k i n s ] wa l k e d u p i n t h e p a r k . . . a n d i twa s two otherguys ther e. A nd he w as i ntr oduci ng m e s ayi ng I w as . . . hi s l i t t l e cous i n. A nd he as ked m e w her e I w as goi ng. I t ol d hi m I w as goi ng t o G er al d’ s hous e. A n d h e sa id h e w as g o ing that w ay b ec au se h e w as g o ing to h is m o ther’s hous e[ ] and he w i l l w al k w i th m e.

1 M .B . te s tif

ie d th a t “ I t h o u g h t I w a s s a fe b e c a u s e h is m o th e r i n tr o d u c e d m e a s h is c o u s in . . . . [A ]n d I t ru s te d . . . h is m o th e r.” ¶3. A ccor di ng t o M . B . , as they appr oache d G er al d’ s a part m ent , W i l ki ns “gr abbed me by 2 m y neck a nd t ol d m e i f

I m ade a s ound thathe w oul d s nap m y neck. ” M . B . t es t i f i ed thats he di d nots cr eam “[ b] eca us e I w as s car ed” and “I w as thi nki ng i f I di d s ay anythi ng ori f

I m ade any noi s es thathe pr obabl y w oul d s nap m y ne ck. A nd then no one w oul d be abl e t o fi nd

### M.B. es timate d that s he wa s 5' 2" and we ighe d 137 pounds at thetime , whi leWilkins 3 

### was 6' 1" and

we i gh e d 1 80 po un ds . Of f i c e r Lo ui s Al e xand e r

of theCo lum

bu s Poli ce Departme nt a ls o te stif

ie d that Wi lkins wa s much bi gger and s tronger

than M.B. M.B. es timate d that i t wa s then 10: 20 p.m . During Wilkins ’s ca se -in-c hie f, he 4 

### off er ed the te stim ony of

are a re si dent

Di aneDe Gra ff

enr ei d that

on summe r e venings, eve n around9:3 0 o r 10 :00 p.m., th ere are “[k]ids out rid ing th eir b ikes, p layin g, o r play ing ball, or s omebody . . . us ual ly out doing t he yard o r ju st o ut barbe cuing . . . . ” Howe ver , DeG raffenreidfurther testified that “[o]n that particu lar n ight, I d on ’t remember anyth ing .” At this point , M. B. t es ti fi ed that Wilkins stat ed “ he ha d bee n wat ching mefor a 5 

### wh ile.” 3 m e .” A c c o rd in g to M .B ., sh e d id n o t se e a n y o n e o u tsid e a n d W ilk in s to o k h e r to “ a n o ld 3 4 abandone d ho us e l i ke a bl oc k a w a y. ” I ns i de the a ba nd on e d h ou s e , M . B. t e s t i f i e d t hat W i l ki ns r emoved hercl othes , l ai d heron the gl as s - l aden f l oor , began l i cki ng herbody, 5 pl ace d hi s hands ar ound herneck a nd “made m e putm y m outh on hi s pri vate par t [ , ] ” and

“ [a]fte r th a t . . . too k h is p riv a te p a rt a n d stu c k itb e tw e e n m y leg s.” M .B . sta ted th a t sh e d id nots cr eam oratt empt t o getaw ay “[ b] ecause h e’ s bi ggerthan me. ” Ther eaf t er , acc or di ng t o M . B . , W i l kins “w al ked m e dow n the streetf rom the aban do ned ho use t o G eral d’s house an d told m e to tell m y b roth ers an d the m tha t he w il l be d o w n the re in a m inu te l ike h e d idn ’t d o a n y th in g .” ¶ 4 . W h e n M .B . a rr iv e d a t G e ra ld ’s a p a rt m e n t, P a lm e r te s tif ie d th a t “ s h e w a s n ’t h e rs e lf .” A c c o rd in g to P a lm e r, M .B . “ w a s sit tin g th e re lo o k in g a ll s a d , h a d little te a rs in h e re y e s .” M . B . then r eques t ed thatPal m ert ake he rhom e. W hi l e dr i vi ng, Pal m err epea t edl y as ked M .B . w h a t w a s w ro n g , b u t o n ly a fte r th e y w e re n e a r h e r h o m e d id sh e d isc u ss th e in c id e n t. U pon arr i vi ng hom e, M . B . goti n the bathtub becaus e s he “f el tdi r ty[ , ] ” and thr ew hercl ot hes i n the tr as h beca us e s he “di dn’ tw antthem any m or e. ” Ther eaf t er , M . B . w as t aken t o t heAc c o r d i n g t o M . B. , “ o n o u rwa y t o th e h o s p i t a l , we s t o p p e d a ta c a r d g a me wh e r e we 6 f ound [ G l or i a] and t ol d herabouti t . S he s ai d do w hatyou have t o do. ” 

### Gloria te stif ie d that M.B. had infor

me d her that t he inci dent

occ urr ed at Sims Scott Park. Wilk ins w as also in dictedfor b urg lary of a dwellin g, wh ich “is n ot imp licated inthis 7 

### app eal.” 4 hos pi t al . I n the emerge ncy r oom , M . B . r ecount ed the i nci dentt o nur s e A m y R i l ey, w ho

6 c o m p lete d a ra p e k it, d u rin g w h ich a “ w h ite su b sta n c e ” w a s fo u n d in M .B .’s v a g in a l v a u lt. ¶5. Ser geantG ary M oor e of the C ol um bus Pol i ce Dep a rtments ub s e qu e nt l y t ook a w r i t t en s t at ementf

r om M . B . a nd then obt ai ned an arr es tw arr anta gai ns tW i l ki ns f ors exual batt ery. D ur i ng pr oces s i ng atthe pol i ce de part m ent , W i l ki ns as ked M oor e i f he coul d s m oke a ci gar ett e. A ccor di ng t o M oor e, “I t ook hi m outback . . . behi nd the pol i ce de part m entt o l et hi m s m oke. W hi l e w e w er e st andi ng outback, [ W i l ki ns ] j us tm ade the st at ementt o m e that h e d id n o t h a v e se x w ith [M .B .] .” M o o re th e n “ a sk e d [W ilk in s] if h e d id n o t h a v e se x w ith h e r, w o u ld h e s u b m it to a D N A te s t b y d ra w in g . . . b lo o d . A n d h e s a id th a t h e w o u ld .” ¶6. W i l ki ns s ubs equent l y w as i ndi ct ed f or s exual batt ery pur s uant t o M i s s i s s i pp i C ode A nnot at ed Sect i on 97- 3- 95 ( R ev. 2006) . T he i ndi ctm entprovi ded , i n pert i nentpart , t hat 7 W i l ki ns “on oraboutthe 27th day of Jul y, 2006 . . . di d unl aw f ul l y, w i l f ul l y, and f

el oni ous l y, e n g a g e in s e x u a l p e n e tr a tio n w ith [M .B .], w i thouther c ons ent . . . . ” ( E mp h a s i s a d d e d ) . On Sept ember4, 2007, the j ury tr i al c om m ence d. W i l ki ns ’ s openi ng s t at ementf r amed t he maj or i s s ue f ort r i a l a s “ w he the rorno tthe s e xu a l e nc ou nt e rbe tw e e n [ M . B. ] a nd W i l ki ns w as cons ens ual ornot . ” The par t i es s t i pul at ed that“upon D N A tes t i ng, i tw as det erm i ned that [ W i l ki ns ] w as . . . t he sour ce of t he se m en f

ound i n [ M . B . ’ s ] vagi nal vaul t . ” A f t erpr es ent i ng th e a fo re m e n tio n e d fa c ts , s ee par agr aphs 2- 5 supra , t he St at e r es t ed and W i l ki ns m oved f or

### 5

a di r ect ed ver di ct , w hi ch w as deni ed by t he ci r cui tcour t . W i l ki ns t hen pr es ent ed t es t i m ony fro m th re e w itn e ss e s, n o n e o f w h o m o ffe re d su b s ta n tiv e p ro o f o n th e iss u e o f c o n se n t. T h e re a fte r, th e ju ry fo u n d W ilk in s g u ilty a s c h a rg e d . A t th e se n ten c in g h e a rin g , the c irc u it courts ent ence d hi m t o s erve a t erm of tw enty ye ar s i n the cus t ody of the M D O C t o be fol l ow ed by fi ve yea r s pos t - r el eas e s upervi s i on. O n Sept ember7, 2007, W i l ki ns f i l ed a

“ M o tio n fo r J u d g m e n t N o tw ith s ta n d in g th e V e r d ic t o r i n th e a lte rn a tiv e fo r N e w T ri a l,” w h ich w a s d e n ied b y th e c irc u it co u rt. W ilk in s th e n tim e ly filed n o tice o f a p p e a l. I S S UE ¶7 . T h is C o u rtw il l con side r: ( 1) W hetherthe j ury ver di ctw as agai ns tthe s uf f i ci ency a nd w ei ghtof

the evi dence . A N A L Y S IS I . W het her t he j ury verdi ct w as agai nst the s uf f i ci ency and w ei ght of t he evi dence. A . Suff

i ciency of

the evidence. ¶8. M i s s i s s i ppi C ode A nnot at ed Sect i on 97-3- 95( 1) ( a) ( R ev. 2006) pr ovi des that“( 1) [ a] per s on i s gui l ty of

s exual ba t t ery i f

he ors he engage s i n s exual pe netr at i on w i th: ( a) A not her per s on w i thouthis orhercons ent . . . . ” M i ss . C ode A nn. § 97- 3- 95( 1) ( a) ( R ev. 2006) ( emphasi s added) . A s the part i es s t i pul at ed thatW i l ki ns w as “the s our ce of the s emen, ” the onl y di s put ed el ementi s w hether“the s exual encount erbetw een [ M . B . ] . . . a nd W i l ki ns w as c o n s e n s u a l o r n o t.” ¶9 . W il k ins m ad e a p o st- tr ial m o ti o n for jud gm ent notw i thst and i ng the v erd ict (“JN O V ”), w hi ch w as deni ed by the ci r cui tcourt . “A m oti on forJ . N . O . V . chal l enges the l egal

### 6

s uf f i ci ency of

the evi dence . ” Iv

y v. S ta te , 949 So. 2d 748, 751 (M i s s . 2007) ( ci t i ng Mc Cla in v. S ta te , 625 So. 2d 774, 778 ( M i s s . 1993) ) . I n B u sh v. S ta te , 8 9 5 S o . 2 d 8 3 6 (M iss. 2 0 0 5 ), thi s C our ts etoutthe s t andar d of r evi ew f orl egal s uf

f i ci ency, s t at i ng: w h ethe r th e e v iden ce is suffi cien t t o su stai n a c o n v ict ion in the fa ce o f a m ot i on f ordi r ect ed ver di cto rf

orj udgm entnotw i ths t andi ng the ver di ct , the cr i t i cal i nqui r y i s w hetherthe evi dence s how s “beyond a r eas onabl e doubtthat acc us ed comm i t t ed the ac tchar ged , and t hathe di d s o unders uch ci r cumst ance s thatevery el ementof the of f ens e exi st ed; a nd w her e the evi dence f

ai l s t o m eetthi s t es ti ti s i ns uf f i ci entt o s uppor ta convi ct i on. ” [ Carr v. S ta te , 208 So. 2d 886, 889 ( M i s s . 1968) ] . H ow ever , thi s i nqui ry does not re q u ire a c o u rt to [:] ‘ask it self w h ethe r it

bel i eves thatthe evi dence attr i al es t abl i s hed gui l tbeyond a r eas onabl e doubt . ’ I ns t ead, the r el evantques t i on i s w hether , af t ervi ew i ng the evi dence i n the l i ghtm os tf

avor abl e t o the pr os ecut i on, any r at i onal tr i erof f act coul d have f

ound t he es s ent i al el ement s of t he cri m e beyond a re a so n a b le d o u b t. J a c k s o n v . V

irg in ia , 443 U . S. 307, 315, 99 S. C t . 2781, 61 L . E d. 2d 560 ( 1979) ( ci t at i ons om i t t ed) ( emphasi s i n or i gi nal ) . Shoul d the fact s and i nf er ence s c ons i der ed i n a c hal l enge t o the s uf f i ci ency of

the evi dence “poi nt i n f avorof the def endan ton any el ementof the of f ens e w i th s uf

f i ci entf or ce thatr eas onabl e men coul d nothave f ound beyond a r eas onabl e doubtthatthe defend ant w as gu i l ty, ” the p roper rem edy is for the app el l at e cou rtt o reverse a n d r e n d e r. E dw a rds v . S ta te , 469 So. 2d 68, 70 ( M i s s . 1985) ( ci t i ng May v. S ta te , 460 So. 2d 778, 781 ( M i s s . 1984) ) . . . . H ow ever , i f a r evi ew of

the evi dence r evea l s thati ti s of s uch qual i ty and w ei ghtt hat , “havi ng i n m i nd the beyond a r eas onabl e doubtbur den of pr oof s t andar d, r eas onabl e f

ai r - m i nded m en in the exe r ci s e of

i m part i al j udgm entm i ghtr eac h di f f er entconcl us i ons on every el ementof

the of f ens e, ” t he evidence w i l l be dee m ed t o have be en s u ff ic ie n t. E dw ar ds , 4 6 9 S o . 2 d a t 7 0 . . . . B u sh , 895 So. 2d at843. ¶ 1 0 . T h is C o u rt h a s s tate d th a t: [ o] urcas e l aw cl ear l y hol ds thatthe unsuppor t ed w or d of the vi ct i m of

a s ex cr i m e i s s uf

f i ci entto s uppor ta gui l ty ver di ctw her e thatt es t i m ony i s not di s cr edi t ed orcontr adi ct ed by othercr edi bl e evi dence , es peci al l y i f the

### 7

conductof

the vi ct i m i s cons i s t entw i t h t he conduc tof one w ho has been vi ct i m i zed. T he vi ct i m ’ s physi cal and m ent al condi t i on af t ert he i nci dent , as w el l as the f

actthatthe i nci dentw as i m m edi at el y r eport ed i s r ecogni zed a s corr obor at i ng evi dence . L a dn ierv. S ta te , 878 So. 2d 926, 931 ( M i s s . 2004) ( quot i ng Co llie r v . S ta te , 711 So. 2d 458, 462 ( M i s s . 1998 )) . A ccor di ng t o M . B . , W i l ki ns gr abbed he rand thr eat ened t o “s nap” he r neck, l ed heri nt o an ab andoned house , and then s exual l y batt er ed her . Fol l ow i ng t he i nci dent , Pal m ert es t i f

i ed thatM . B . “w as n’ ther s el f ” and “ had l i t t l e t ear s i n here yes . ” Soon t her e a f t e r , M . B. r e po r t e d the i nc i de ntt o Pa l mer . M . B. a dd e d tha tw he n s he a rr i ve d home, s he thr ew aw ay hercl othes and t ook a bath beca us e s he “f el tdi r ty. ” A tthe ho spi t al , t he ver s i on of t he i nci dentw hi ch M . B . r ecount ed t o R i l ey w as s ubs t ant i vel y i dent i cal t o her t es t i m ony. Fori ns t ance , acc or di ng t o R i l ey: [ M . B . ] s ai d thats he w as w al ki ng hom e w i th a man nam ed M r . W i l ki ns , that s he f ound outw as her cou si n. A nd thathe, on the w ay home, ki nd of had w al ked behi nd herand puthi s a r m a r ound he rne ck and t ol d hert o be qui etor thathe w oul d s nap herneck . . . i f s he w as l oud. So, then he pr ocee ded t o t ake herpa nt s of f a nd c ont i nue w i th the se xual a ss a u lt. R egar di ng the l ack of

c ons ent , thi s C our tf

i nds no “othercr edi bl e evi dence ” t o di s cr edi tor c o n tr a d ic t M .B .’s te s tim o n y . Id . W hi l e M . B . di d noti dent i f y W i l ki ns i n the courtr oom , t he part i es s t i pul at ed thathe w as “the s our ce of the s emen . . . . ” A s s uch, thi s and any other m i nori ncons i s t enci es bet w een M . B . ’ s t es t i m ony and t hatof otherw i tnes s es w er e mat t er s of c re d ib ility to b e w e ig h e d a n d re s o lv e d b y th e ju ry . See L adni er , 8 7 8 S o . 2 d a t 9 3 1 ; Col lier , 711 So. 2d a t462 ( “[ o] urcas e l aw i s axi om at i c on the pr opos i t i on thatthe j ury i s arbi t erof the cr edi bi l i ty of

t es t i m ony. ”) . W hi l e W i l ki ns a t t acks M . B . ’ s cr edi bi l i ty, hert es t i m ony w as“A mot i on f ora new tr i al f

al l s w i thi n a l ow erstandar d of r evi ew than d o es th at of a 8 j ud gm entnotw i ths t andi ng the ver di ctora di r ect ed ver di ct . ” S h e ffie ld , 74 9 So . 2d a t127 (em p h asis ad d ed ). 

### 8 nots uf f i ci ent l y di s cr edi t ed t o w arr antoverrul i ng the verdi ct . A ccor di ngl y, “any r at i onal j ur orcoul d have f

ound beyond a r eas onabl e doubtthatal l of the el ement s had bee n m etby the St at e[ , ] ” B u sh , 895 So. 2d at844, i n pr ovi ng s exual ba t t ery. T her ef or e, thi s C our tf

i nds th a t th e c irc u it co u rt d id n o t er r in d e n y in g W ilk in s’s m o tio n f o r J N O V , a n d th is iss u e is w ith o u t m e rit. B . W ei ght of the evidence. ¶ 1 1 . W ilk in s m a d e a p o st-tria l m o tio n fo r n e w tria l, w h ich w a s d e n ied b y th e c irc u it c o u rt.

“ A m o tio n fo r n e w tr ia l c h a lle n g e s t h e w e ig h t o f t h e e v id e n c e . S h e ffie ld v. S ta te , 749 So. 2 d 1 2 3 , 1 2 7 (M iss . 1 9 9 9 ). A re v e rsa l is w a rra n ted o n ly if th e trial c o u rt abus ed i t s dis cr et i on i n de nyi ng a mot i on f

ornew tr i al . ” I

vy , 949 S o. 2d at753 ( emphasi s added) . I n B u sh , this C our ts etoutthe s t andar d of r evi ew f orw ei ghtof

the evi dence , s t at i ng: 8 [w ]he n re v iew in g a d e n ial o f a m o tio n fo r a n e w tria l b a se d o n a n o b jec tio n to the w eigh t of th e e v iden ce , w e w il l on ly d istu rb a v erd ictw h en itis so c o n tr ary to the ov erw h elm ing w eigh t o f th e ev iden ce th at t o all o w i t to st an d w o u ld s a n c tio n a n u n c o n s c io n a b le in ju s tic e . He rr in gv. S ta te , 691 So. 2d 948, 957 (M iss . 1 9 9 7 ). W e h a v e sta ted th a t o n a m o tio n fo r n e w trial: th e c o u rt sits a s a th irtee n th ju ro r. T h e m o tio n , h o w e v e r, is addr es s ed t o the di s cr et i on of the court , w hich s houl d be e x e rc ise d w ith c a u tio n , an d th e p o w e r to g ra n t a n e w trial s h o u ld be invoke d onl y i n exce pt i onal cas es i n w hi ch the evi dence p re p o n d e ra tes h e a v ily a g a in st th e v e rd ict. A m ikerv. D r ugs ForL es s, I nc. , 796 So. 2d 942, 947 ( M i s s . 2000) . . . . [ T ] he e v id e n c e sh o u ld b e w e ig h e d in th e lig h t m o s t fa v o ra b le to th e v e rd ict. He r r ing , 691 So. 2d at957.

### 9

B u sh , 895 So. 2d at844. ¶ 1 2 . V ie w in g th e e v id e n c e d is c u s s e d in Is s u e I. supra “i n t he l i ghtm os tfa vor abl e t o t he v e rd ict,” th is C o u rt c a n n o t c o n c lu d e th a t th e c irc u it c o u rt e rre d in a ffirm in g th e ju ry ’s v e rd ict, thus “s anct i on[ i ng] an unconsci onabl e i nj us t i ce. ” Id . I n s hor t , the evi dence does not “pr eponder at [ e] heavi l y agai ns tt he ver di ct . ” Id . ( quot i ng A m iker , 7 9 6 S o . 2 d at 94 7 ). A ccor di ngl y, thi s C our tf i nds thatthe ci r cui tcourtdi d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on i n denyi ng W ilk in s’s m o tio n fo r n e w trial, a n d th is iss u e is w ith o u t m e rit. CO NC L US I ON ¶1 3 . B a se d u p o n the afo rem en ti o n ed an alys is, this C o u rt affirm s the o rde r o f th e C irc u it C our tof L ow ndes C ount y w hi ch deni ed W i l ki ns ’ s “M ot i on f orJ udgm entN otw i ths t andi ng th e V e rd ic t o r i n th e a lte rn a tiv e fo r N e w T ri a l.” ¶ 1 4 . C O N V I C T I O N O F SE X U A L BA T T E R Y A N D SE N T E N C E O F T W E N T Y ( 20) YE AR S I N T HE CU S T OD Y O F T HE M I S S I S S I P P I DE P AR T M E NT OF CO RRECTI ON S , W I TH FI VE ( 5 ) YEARS P OST- RELEAS E S UPERVI S I ON , W I TH CONDI TI ONS , AF F I RM ED . S M I TH, C. J . , W AL LE R AND D I AZ , P. J J . , CARL S ON, DI CKI NS ON AND L A M A R , J J ., C O N C U R . G R A V E S , J ., C O N C U R S IN R E S U L T O N L Y . E A S L E Y , J ., NO T P AR T I CI P AT I NG .