I N T H E C O UR T O F APPEA LS O F TH E STAT E O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO . 2 0 1 3 - KA - 0 1 0 7 3 - CO A

ROBE RT F I TZ GERA LD S M I TH A/ K/ A ROB ER T S M I TH A/ K/ A RO BERT F . S M I TH AP P EL LA NT

v. S TATE OF M I S S I S S I PP I APP ELLEE D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 12/ 12/ 2012 T RI AL J UDGE : HON. M AR GAR E T CA RE Y- M CC RA Y COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: W ASHI NGTON COU NTY CI RCUI T COURT ATTO RN EY FO R A PP ELLAN T: OFFI CE O F S TATE PUB LI C D EFENDER BY : ERI N ELI ZAB ETH PRI DG EN 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 : SCOTT STUA RT NAT UR E OF T HE CA S E : CR I M I NAL - F E L ONY T RI AL CO UR T DI S P OS I T I ON: CO NVI CT E D OF S T AT UT OR Y R AP E AND S E NT E NC E D T O T W E NT Y YE AR S I N T HE CU STO D Y O F TH E M I SSI SSI PPI DEPA RTM ENT O F CORR ECTI ON S, W I TH EL EVE N YEARS TO S ERVE , NI NE YEARS S US P E NDE D, AND F I VE YE AR S OF S UP E RV I S E D P RO BA T I ON, AND T O P AY $5 00 TO TH E C RI M E V I CT I M S’ CO M P E NS AT I ON F UND D I SPO SI T I O N : A FFIRM E D - 11/ 18/ 2014 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 I R V I N G , P . J. , B A R N E S A N D C A R L T O N , JJ. I RVI NG , P. J . , FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. A W as hi ngt on C ount y j ur y f ound R ober t Sm i t h gui l t y of s t atut or y r ape. Sm i t h f i l ed a m o tio n fo r a ju d g m e n t n o tw ith sta n d in g th e v e rd ict o r, in th e a ltern a tiv e , a n e w trial,

### The Cour t of Appea ls dec li nes to i dent if y se xual -a ss aul t vi ctim s. In the i nte re st of 1 

### the chi ld’ s priva cy, themi nor’ s name and the name s of fami ly m em

ber s have be en sub stitutedwithinitials o r aliases. Cathy, now dec ea se d, was Sm it h and Li nda’ s mot

her and B. G.’ s biol ogic alpat er nal 2 

### gran dmo ther. S mith is B .G.’s b iolo gical p aternal uncle. It appe ar s that

only onebedr oom i n the house was uti lized as a bedroom, and the 3 

### othe r r ooms wer e us ed t o st ore mi sc el laneous it em s. Smi th and Cathy typi ca lly s lept in t he fron t roo m. 2 c h a llen g in g th e w e ig h t an d the su ffic ien c y o f th e e v id e n c e p re se n ted a g a in st h im d u rin g trial. T h e c irc u it co u rt d e n ied th a t m o tio n in its e n tirety . S m ith a p p e a ls, a rg u in g th a t th e c irc u it c o u rt e rr e d in d e n y in g h is m o tio n fo r a n e w tr ia l. ¶ 2 . F i n d i n g n o e r r o r , we a f f i r m. FACTS ¶3. D ur i ng t he w eeke nd of M ay 31 , 2 00 8, thr ou gh Jun e 1 , 2 00 8, B . G . vi s i t ed her 1 gr andmot her , Cat hy, a tCat hy’ s hous e. A tthe t i m e, Sm i th; C athy; Sm i t h’ s s i s t er , L i nda; and L i nda’ s s on, B r i an, al l l i ved i n t he hous e, w hi ch cons i s t ed of a f r ontr oom ; t w o bedr oom s, o n e o f w h ich b elon g e d to L in d a a n d B ri an ; a ba thro o m ; and sev era l othe r roo m s. B . G . ’s 2 t w o youngerbr ot her s , J os hua and A l ex, al s o vi s i t ed C athy t hatw eekend . B . G . , B r i an, J os hua, and A l ex s l epti n L i nda and Bri an’ s r oom , and C athy, Sm i t h, and Li nda s l epti n t he f r o n tr o o m. 3 ¶4. O n Sunday, J une 1, w hi ch w as B . G . ’ s ni nt h bi r t hday, B . G . ’ s m ot her , T i f f any, pi cked B . G . up f

r om C athy’ s hous e t o t ake B. G . t o B . G ’ s bi r t hday part y at a l ocal s kat i ng r i nk. A c c o rd in g to T iffa n y , B .G . b e h a v e d n o rm a lly o n th a t d a y , a lth o u g h B .G . sta ted th a t sh e d id

### B.G. has an ol der sis te r who is not Cathy’s grandc hil d and who was not at Cathy’ s 4 

### ho use o n th e week endthat th e incid ent to okplace. 3 n o t w an t t o v isi t C athy ’s ho u se a g ain u n less h er o lder sist er a cc o m p an ied h er. 4 ¶5. T es t i m ony att r i al r evea l ed thati n D ece m ber20 08 , Ti f f a ny a nd B. G . vi s i t ed D r . H os an A zomani , a pedi atr i ci an, and dur i ng t hatvi s i t , Ti f f any i nf or m ed D r . A zomani t hatB . G . had been e xper i enci ng i r r egul arm ens t ruat i on. D r . A zomani e xpl ai ned t o Ti f f any t hati r r egul ar m ens t ruat i on w as nor m al f ora gi r l B. G . ’ s age. D r . A zomani di d notexami ne B . G . ’ s vagi na. D iss a tisfie d w ith D r. A z o m a n i’s e x p lan a tio n , o n Ja n u a ry 2 7 , 2 0 0 9 , T iffa n y to o k B .G . to K ar en Fl emi ng, a nur s e pr act i t i oner . T i ff any inf or m ed Fl emi ng of

B . G . ’ s i r r egul ar m ens t ruat i on an d of a f oul odorcomi ng f

r om B . G . ’ s vagi na. Fl emi ng t es t i f i ed thats he ques t i oned B . G . a bouts exual a ct i vi t y, a nd B. G . i ni t i al l y i ndi cat ed thatno one had “ m es s ed w i t h” he r . Fl e mi ng s t a t e d t ha ts he p e r f or med a c ot t on s w a b of B. G . ’ s v a gi na t o obt ai n a sp e c im e n fo r te stin g . T h e tes t re v e a led th a t B .G . h a d c o n tra c ted trich o m o n ias is, a se x u a lly t r ans m i t t ed i nf

ect i on ( ST I ) , and thatB . G . s uf f er ed f r om bact er i al vagi nos i s . O n Janua r y 29, 2009, Fl emi ng cal l ed T i f f any and B . G . ba ck t o he rof f i ce t o r evea l the t es tr es ul t s . A ccor di ng t o F l em i ng , du ri ng t hat of fi ce vis i t , B . G . st at ed thatS m i t h h ad “m essed w i t h” h er the las t t i me s he v i s i t e d Cat hy ’ s h ou s e — be t w e e n M a y 31 , 2 00 8, a nd J un e 1 , 2 00 8. Fl emi ng i ns t ruct ed Ti f

f any t o t ake B. G . t o t he D epart m entof H um an Ser vi ces ( D H S) t o r epor tt he in c id e n t. D u rin g tria l, on c ro ss -e x a m in a tio n , F lem in g tes tified th a t trich o m o n ias is is contr act ed pr i m ar i l y t hr ough s exual i nt er cours e, and thaton r ar e occ as i ons , i tcan be tr a n s m itte d fr o m a m o th e r t o h e r f e tu s .

### As ind icated later in th e op inio n, T iffanytoo k B .G. to meet withPh illips fo r the first 5 

### int er vie w, and af

te r that int er vie w, Ti ff

any and B.G. le ft

to m ee t withso meon e at the Was hingt on County She ri ff ’s Departme nt. Aft er

Tif fany and B. G. lef

t t he s herif f’ s dep artment, th ey w ent b ack to the D HS office fo r the seco ndinterv iew w ith P hillip s. 4 ¶ 6 . V e lm a P h ill ip s, a D H S c o u n se lo r, tes tified th a t sh e in ter v iew e d B .G . o n tw o se p a ra te occa s i ons on J anuary 29, 2009. Phi l l i ps s t at ed thatdur i ng t he f i r s ti nt er vi ew , B . G . i nf

or m ed 5 her t hat she w as raped by S m i t h w hen she l astvis i t ed C at hy ’s ho use. A ccordi ng t o P hil l i ps, B . G . s t at ed thatSm i t h ent er ed Li nda and B r i an’ s r oom w her e B . G . , Bri an, J os hua, and A l ex w er e s l eepi ng, gr abbed B. G . by herl egs , and t ook hert o anotherr oom , w her e he “ l i cked he r w h e re h e r p e rio d w a s .” P h ill ip s s tate d th a t B .G . told h e r th a t sh e sta rte d c ry in g a n d to ld S m ith to g e t a w a y fr o m h e r p ri o r t o S m ith h ittin g h e r in th e h e a d a n d te llin g h e r t o “ s h u t u p .” A ccor di ng t o Phi l l i ps , B . G . s t at ed t hatS m i t h re l eas ed herw hen she st ar t ed cr yi ng, t hats he ra n in to th e b a th ro o m a fte r S m ith re lea se d h e r, a n d th a t sh e w e n t in to L in d a ’s b e d ro o m to tell L i nda aboutt he i nci dent . Phi l l i ps t es t i f i ed that , i n t he sec ond i nt er vi ew , B . G . s t at ed that S m ith rap ed h er b efo re h e re lease d h er a n d that S m ith k ick e d h e r i n h er stom ac h b efo re w al ki ng aw ay. Phi l l i ps st at ed thatB . G . i nf or m ed hert hats he f

el l as l eep i n t he bathr oom after t h e inc iden t. In th e se co n d interview , B . G . also told P h il li p s tha t B . G . w en t i n to L ind a’s r oom t o t el l herw hathappene d. ¶7. A f

t er B . G . ’ s f

i r s t i nt er vi ew w i t h Phi l l i ps , but bef or e t he second i nt er vi ew , T i f f any t ook B . G . t o t he W as hingt on C ount y Sher i f f’ s D epart m ent , w her e Ti f f any i nf or m ed L i eut enantE van Sm i t h aboutt he i nci dent . D ur i ng t r i al , L i eut enantSm i t h t es t i fi ed t hathe di d not conductan i nt er vi ew of B . G . but , pur s uantt o pr ot ocol , s chedul ed a f or ens i c i nt er vi ew

### 5

w ith A n g ie F lo y d , w h o in te rv ie w e d B .G . o n F e b ru a ry 4 , 2 0 0 9 . ¶8. Fl oyd t es t i f

i ed thatB . G . al s o i nf

or m ed hert hatSm i t h had ra ped heratC athy’ s hous e. A ccor di ng t o Fl oyd, B . G . s t at ed t hatS m i t h had “l i cked he rpr i vat e part [ , ] and s he al s o s t at ed t hathe had t ouched he rpr i vat e par tw i t h hi s pr i vat e par t [ . ] [ H ] e hel d he rdow n, a nd t hen he hi theri n t he f

ace . ” ¶9 . B . G . t es t i f

i e d t ha t s he w a s a s l e e p i n Li nd a a nd Br i a n’ s r oo m w he n Smi t h came i n, g ra b b e d h e r h a n d s, a n d d ra g g e d h e r fro m th e b e d . A c c o rd in g to B .G ., S m ith to o k h e r in to anotherr oom , w her e he r emoved hercl ot hi ng and t hr ew heron a bed. T her e, he “l i cked he r w h e re h e r p e rio d w a s.” B .G . tes tified th a t w h e n s h e tr ie d to e sc a p e , S m ith p u n c h e d h e r in t he f ace and t ol d hert o “s hutup. ” B . G . s t at ed thats he s t ar t ed cryi ng, a nd Sm i t h l ethergo. B . G . al s o t es t i f

i ed t hatSm i t h “puthi s pr i vat e parti n [ her s ] ” bef or e he l ethergo. She t hen r an i nt o t he bathr oom . A ccor di ng t o B . G . , w hen Sm i t h saw hert he nextm or ni ng, he t ol d her t hathe w oul d ki l l heri f s he t ol d anyone a boutt he i nci dent . D ur i ng t r i al , B . G . coul d not r eca l l s t at i ng t hatS m i t h ki cked he ri n t he s t om ach be f or e l et t i ng hergo, and s he coul d not r eca l l w hetheri tw as day orni ghtw hen the i nci dentoccur r ed, al t hough she r emem ber ed that i tw as da r k i n the r oom w her e t he i nci dentt ook pl ace . I n hert es t i m ony, T i f f any s t at ed that B . G . i nf or m ed hert hatSm i t h had r aped her , a nd thatB. G . had no mot i ve t o f abr i cat e s uch a s to ry . ¶10. D r . A zomani t es t i f i ed thathe s aw B . G . on D ece m ber11, 2008, and thats he compl ai ned, f

ort he f i r s tt i m e, of

i r r egul arm ens t ruat i on, s peci f i cal l y t hats he had be en m ens t ruat i ng f

ort hr ee w eeks . D r . A zomani s t at ed thathe di d notnot i ce any act i ve vagi nal

### Whil e i n jai lawai ti ngl ega l proce edi ngs on the s tatut ory- ra pe c harge, Smi th r ec ei ved 6 

### ant ibi oti c tre atme nt f

or a tootha che . Af

te r r ec ei ving t

he antibiotic tr eatm ent , Sm it h was tested fo r tricho mon iasis, andtests revealedthat h e didno t hav e the in fection . 6 b le e d in g o r d is c h a rg e o r a fi s h y o d o r c o m in g fr o m B .G .’s v a g in a . ¶11 . In his t est i m on y, S m i t h st at ed t hat he did no t rape B . G . H e al so po i nted ou t t hat t est r es ul t s re veal ed t hathe di d not have t r i chomoni as i s . D ur i ng Sm i t h’ s cr os s - exami nat i on, t he St at e el i ci t ed t es t i m ony r egar di ng ant i bi ot i c tr eatm entSm i t h re cei ved pr i ort o bei ng t es t ed fort ri cho m on i asi s. 6 ¶1 2 . O n ap p ea l, S m ith arg u es that th e e v id e n c e co n sist ed so lel y o f B . G . ’s co n tr ad ict o ry stat em en ts th at w ere rep ea ted to th e jury by th e S tat e’s w itn esse s. S m ith insist s tha t B . G . ’s c o n tra d icto ry sta tem e n ts, c o u p led w ith th e a b se n c e o f a n y p h y sic a l ev id e n c e c o n n e c tin g h im t o t he cr i m e, show t hatt he j ur y’ s ver di cti s agai ns tt he overw hel m i ng w ei ghtof t he evi dence , a n d th a t a n e w tr ia l is w a rr a n te d . DI S CU S S I ON ¶13. I n G ro ss ley v . S ta te , 1 2 7 S o . 3 d 1 1 4 3 , 1 1 4 9 (¶ 

### 19) ( Mis s. Ct. App. 2013) (i nte rna l citation s omitted ), we stated : A mo tionfo r a n ew trial ch alleng es the w eigh t of th e evid ence. T he p ow er to grant a ne w tria l s hould beinvoke d only i n exc eptiona l c as es in whi ch the evi denc e pr eponde rates heav ily a gai nst theverdic t. When c onsi dering an ob jectionto th e weig ht o f the ev iden ce, we v iew th e evid ence inthe lig ht mo st favora bleto t he ve rdi ct and wi llonly di st

urb a verdic t whe n it

is s o contrary to th e ov erwh elming weig ht o f the ev iden ce that to al lo wit to stan d w ou ld sanction an uncons ci onabl e i njus ti ce . I. Inc onsi

stent and Contradic tor

y Ev ide nce

### 7

¶14. Smi th argues that B.G. ’s “c ontr adi ct ory st at ements were si mply repeate d over and over aga in t o thejur

y through th e h ear say te stim onie s” of Fl em ing, Phil lips, Lie ute nant Smi th, Floyd, and Ti ff

any. He i nsi st s that

“the c ontr adi ct ed t es ti mony, coupl ed wi th t he t ota l la ck of physi ca l e vide nce ,” prove s that theve rdi ct

i s aga ins t t

he ove rwhe lm ing we ight

of the evi denc e. ¶15. Des pit e s omeinc onsi st enc ie s, B.G. ’s state me nts—that Sm it h pull ed he r f

rom a be d, too k h er into ano ther ro om, an d rap ed h er at Cathy’ s ho use th e week endof B .G.’s n inth bir thday—re ma ine d cons is te nt. W e fi nd that B. G.’ s s tate me nts wer e not contra dic tor

y. More over , i t i s we llse tt le d that “ when the e vide nce is conf li cting, thejur

y [ is ] thesol e j udge of the c re dibi li ty of

witnes se s and theweight and worth of

thei r t es ti mony. ” Gathright v. Sta te , 38 0 S o. 2 d 1 27 6, 1 27 8 (M iss. 19 80 ). Th is issue is w itho ut merit. II . Lack

of Phy si cal Evidenc e ¶16. Smi th al so argues that the re was no physi ca l or me dic al evi denc e li nking him to t he crim e be ca

use he t es te d negati ve f

or tri chom onia si s and no eviden ce o f penetrati on was intro du ced durin g trial, o ther th an th e testimon ies o f B .G. an d th e witn esses wh o sp ok e with B.G. duri ng the ir

inve stigati ons. Howeve r, “the uns upport ed word of the vi ctim of a se x crim e i s s uff

icient to support a

guil ty ve rdi ct

wher e the t es ti mony i s not dis cr edi te d or contra dic te d by othe r cr edibleevi denc e. ” Mo rga n v. State , 9 95 S o. 2 d 8 12 , 81 7 (¶1 7) (M iss. Ct. App. 2008) (quoting Da vis v. Sta te , 878 So. 2d 1020, 1027 (¶29) ( Mis s. Ct. App. 2004) ). ¶17. Upon re vie w, we cannot s ay that B.G. ’s tes ti mony was dis cr edi te d or c ontr adi ct ed by

### 8

credible evi denc e. Smi th t ake s i ss ue wi th t he f ac t t hat theStatefa il ed t o pre se nt phys ic al evid ence to sho w h owB.G. cou ld hav e contractedtrichomo niasis fro m him w hentest results re vea le d that he did not

have the STI. That

Smi th t es te d negati vely for tric homoni as is does not prove that

he di d not have i t during t he r el evant tim e pe ri od, a s the St at e pr oduce d evid ence th at cou ld explainwhy Smithdidnot test positiv e at the time he was tested . Smith al so t ake s is sue with thefac t that no evide nce was pre se nte d to show that B.G.’ s hym en wa s broke n or that

her vagi na wa s an abnor

ma l s iz e f

or a girl he r a ge. Howeve r, physi ca l evid ence o f sexu al pen etrationis no t necessaryto s ec ure ac o nv ictionin th is case. It is sufficien t that B .G. testifie dthat S mith p enetratedher. See W illiam s v. Sta te , 757 So. 2d 95 3, 9 57 (¶17 ) (Miss. 1 99 9). T his issu e is with out merit. ¶18. Aft er

cons ide ri ng theevi denc e i n the li ght m ost favora bleto t he ve rdi ct , we fi nd that the v erdict is n ot so con trary to the o verw helmin g w eigh t o f the ev iden ce that to allowit to st and would sanction an uncons ci onabl e inj ustic e. Ac cordingly, we af fi rm theci rc uit

court jud gment. ¶19. THE JUDGMENT OF TH E C IRC UIT COURT OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF CONVICTI ON OF STATUTORY RAPE AND SENTENCE OF TWENTY YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MI SSISSI PPI DEPARTMENT OF CO RREC TI ON S,WI THEL EVENYEARS TO SERVE,NINE YE AR S S US PE ND ED , AN D F IVE YE AR S O F S UP ERVIS ED PR OB AT ION , AN D T O P AY $ 5 0 0 T O T HE CRI M E VI CTI M S ’ CO M PE NS AT I ON F UND 

### IS AFFI RMED. ALL COSTS OF TH IS AP PE AL ARE A SS ES SE D T O WAS HI NG TO N C OU NT Y. LE E, C. J. , GRIFF I S, P. J. , BA RN ES , I SH EE , RO BE RT S, CA RL TO N, MAXW EL L, FA I R A ND JA ME S, JJ . , CO NC UR .