Case Name: Michael Anthony HAILEY v. STATE of Mississippi
Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Mississippi
Decision Date: 1988-12-07
Citations: 537 So. 2d 411
Docket Number: No. 57356
Parties: Michael Anthony HAILEY v. STATE of Mississippi.
Judges: ROY NOBLE LEE, C.J., and PRATHER, ROBERTSON, SULLIVAN, and ZUCCARO, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 537
Pages: 411–420

Head Matter:
Michael Anthony HAILEY v. STATE of Mississippi.
No. 57356.
Supreme Court of Mississippi.
Dec. 7, 1988.
Robertson, J., filed a concurring opinion.
Hawkins, P.J., filed opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part in which Griffin, J., joined.
Griffin, J., filed opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part in which Anderson, J., joined.
Paul R. Scott, Wilroy & Scott, Hernando, for appellant.
Edwin Lloyd Pittman and Mike Moore, Attys. Gen. by John H. Emfinger, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.

Opinion:
DAN M. LEE, Presiding Justice,
for the Court:
This case presents a conviction of child fondling following trial in the Circuit Court of DeSoto County on an indictment charging Michael Anthony Hailey with forcible rape. The fondling charge was submitted to the jury at the close of the evidence as a lesser included offense instruction on the principal charge of forcible rape. The jury failed to find forcible rape of the 13-year-old prosecutrix, but did find Hailey guilty of fondling. Following that verdict the trial court entered judgment and sentenced Hailey to seven years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections.
Because the indictment did not sufficiently inform Hailey that he might face a charge of child fondling, however, his conviction must be reversed.
I.
E.M., the 13-year-old prosecutrix, spent the night of February 9, 1985, at the apartment of her Aunt Georgia, while her mother and other family members, along with the defendant Michael Hailey (who is Georgia's companion and roommate) celebrated someone's birthday.
E.M. expected her mother to return for her that evening, but it got late and around 10:00 p.m. she went to sleep on a couch in a bedroom. Her aunt Georgia slej/t in another bedroom with her two sons.
Later, during the early morning hours, E.M. said she was awakened by the sound of voices. About that time, Michael Hailey entered. E.M. testified that Hailey grabbed her and tried to turn her over on her back. She held on to the couch, but Hailey succeeded in pulling her to the floor. Hailey pulled off her pants, E.M. testified, and pulled up her blouse and bra,, placed a hand over her mouth, and began touching her breasts. He told her if she screamed he would hurt her. Prior to this statement she had not called for help, but during the assault she attempted to kick a closet door to make noise.
E.M. testified that Hailey then penetrated her with his penis. This went on for a few minutes. Afterwards, Georgia walked in and turned on the lights. Georgia and Hailey began arguing and E.M. grabbed her clothes and ran to her uncle's apartment nearby.
Later, another uncle drove E.M. home and her mother took her to a hospital for an examination.
Over objection, E.M.'s mother was allowed to testify to details of the assault that E.M. related to her after she returned home.
Dr. Larry Black examined E.M. that morning about 9:45 a.m. Black testified without objection to the facts surrounding the alleged rape as related to him by E.M. for medical history purposes. E.M.'s hymen was not intact, but he found no evidence of trauma other than an irritated area where the child had a yeast infection at the introitus where the skin meets the internal vaginal tissue. This irritation could have been caused by rubbing or intercourse; however, there was no sperm found in her vagina. A rape pack was prepared in any event.
Larry Turner, a forensic serologist with the Mississippi Crime Laboratory, testified he found traces of semen on E.M.'s jeans, but there was not enough present to complete an analysis. He found no seminal fluid on any other clothes or on any other specimens in the rape pack.
Hailey did not take the stand. Georgia testified for the defense that when she entered the room both Hailey and E.M. stated they did not do anything.
AnotheiNaunt of E.M. testified that she spoke with E.M. over the telephone the morning of the incident and the child stated that "Georgia caught Michael in the room with me."
At the close of all the evidence, the trial court heard argument on and then granted an instruction to the jury that it could find Hailey guilty of the lesser included offense of child fondling. The jury returned a verdict of guilty of child fondling. The trial court sentenced Hailey to seven years. The trial court overruled Hailey's motion in the alternative for a new trial or for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, and this appeal followed in timely fashion.
II.
The dispositive question and the reason this conviction must be reversed is the failure of the indictment to inform Hailey of the charge of fondling a child.
By indictment dated August 29, 1985, it was alleged that Hailey
[D]id unlawfully, wilfully and feloniously forcibly ravish, rape and carnally know [E.M.], a female of the age of twelve (12) years or upward, against the will and without the consent of [E.M.], in direct violation of Section 97-3-65(2), Mississip pi Code of 1972 Annotated, as amended....
At the time of the alleged offense, Miss. Code Ann. § 97-3-65(2) provided:
(2) Every person who shall forcibly ravish any female of the age of twelve (12) years or upward, or who shall have been convicted of having carnal knowledge of any female above the age of twelve (12) years without her consent, by administering to her any substance or liquid which shall produce such stupor or such imbecility of mind or weakness of body as to prevent effectual resistance, upon conviction shall be imprisoned for life in the State Penitentiary if the jury by its verdict so prescribes; and in cases where the jury fails to fix the penalty at life imprisonment the court shall fix the penalty at imprisonment in the State Penitentiary for any term as the court, in its discretion, may determine.
As can be seen from the statute, the elements of rape are:
1) carnal knowledge
2) without consent and by force
3) of a female child age 12 years or upward.
The indictment tracks the statute and no doubt clearly informed Hailey of the charge; however, Hailey was convicted of child fondling. The statutory provision for child fondling implicated is Miss.Code ann. § 97-5-23 (Supp.1987), which provides:
Any person above the age of eighteen (18) years, who, for the purpose of gratifying his or her lust, or indulging his or her depraved licentious sexual desires, shall handle, touch or rub with hands or any part of his or her body or any member thereof, any child under the age of fourteen (14) years, with or without the child's consent, shall be guilty of a high crime and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined in a sum not less than One Hundred Dollars ($100.00) nor more than One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00), or be imprisoned in the State Penitentiary not less than one (1) year nor more than ten (10) years, or be punished by both such fine and imprisonment, at the discretion of the court.
Thus, the elements of child fondling are:
1) a handling or touching or rubbing
2) of a child under the age of 14 years
3) by a person above the age of 18 years
4) for purposes of gratifying lust or indulging licentious sexual desires.
Mississippi law provides that a jury may convict a defendant of a lesser included offense on trial of any indictment. Miss. Code Ann. § 99-19-5 (1972) provides:
Findings of jury. On an indictment for any offense the jury may find the defendant guilty of the offense as charged, or of any attempt to commit the same offense, or may find him guilty of an inferior offense, or other offense, the commission of which is necessarily included in the offense with which he is charged in the indictment, whether the same be a felony or misdemeanor, without any additional count in the indictment for that purpose, [emphasis added]
A literal reading of this statute appears to authorize a jury to convict a defendant of an "inferior offense, or other offense." Indeed, there is loose language in some of our cases that under this section the state may obtain a conviction of an "inferior" offense. See Callahan v. State, 419 So.2d 165, 177 (Miss.1982). However, this Court has interpreted this section to apply only to inferior offenses "necessarily included within the more serious offense." Sanders v. State, 479 So.2d 1097, 1105 (Miss.1985); Gillum v. State, 468 So.2d 856, 861 (Miss.1985); Cannaday v. State, 455 So.2d 713, 725 (Miss.1984); Biles v. State, 338 So.2d 1004 (Miss.1976); Gray v. State, 220 Miss. 220, 70 So.2d 524 (1954); Boggan v. State, 176 Miss. 655, 170 So. 282 (1936); Brown v. State, 103 Miss. 664, 60 So. 727 (1913); Bedell v. State, 50 Miss. 492 (1874). Stated differently, this Court holds this section only to authorize convic tions of inferior constituent offenses unless there be an additional count in the indictment. See Callahan v. State, 419 So.2d 165, 176 (Miss.1982).
In Sanders v. State, supra, this Court outlined the prerequisites for granting instructions for necessarily included offenses.
While the authority to convict a lesser included offense began as a weapon of the prosecution, it has become a defense tool as well. Whether applied for the benefit of the state or defense, in order to authorize such instruction the more serious offense must include all the elements of the lesser offense, that is, it is impossible to commit the greater offense without at the same time committing the lesser included offense. Also, there must be some evidence to support the lesser included offense. See: Lee v. State, 469 So.2d 1225 (Miss.1985); Ruffin v. State, 444 So.2d 839 (Miss.1984); Lambert v. State, 462 So.2d 308 (Miss. 1984); Colburn v. State, 431 So.2d 1111 (Miss.1983); and Presley v. State, 321 So.2d 309 (Miss.1975).
479 So.2d at 1108.
The state argues that this Court held child fondling was indeed a lesser-included offense of statutory rape in McBrayer v. State, 467 So.2d 647 (Miss. 1985). In McBrayer the defendant was a 46-year-old man who had intercourse with a 13-year-old female. McBrayer was not indicted for statutory rape, but instead he was indicted for and convicted of child fondling. He could not have been guilty of statutory rape, the proof showed, because the child was not "of previously chaste character." Id. at 647-48. The state cites this language:
Without doubt, some "fondling" of S.G. by Malcolm did occur on any number of occasions. Some of it occurred on the night in question in the presence of S.G.'s mother without serious protest. Only when Malcolm and S.G. brought up the subject of their possibly getting married did S.G.'s mother ask Malcolm to leave S.G. alone. Malcolm left but soon returned at S.G.'s invitation.
In the context of the ongoing relationship between Malcolm and S.G., it is fair to say that such fondling as did occur on that night was obviously a preliminary to sexual intercourse which occurred in S.G.'s home while her younger sister was in the next bed, which in turn did lead to protest from S.G.'s mother when she discovered S.G. and Malcolm asleep together at approximately 6:00 a.m. the next morning.
Id. at 648.
The Court did not hold that fondling was a lesser included offense of statutory rape; however, it only held that this Court would not subsume the statutory rape provision of Miss.Code Ann. § 97-5-21 (Supp.1987) into the child fondling statute.
Under the theory offered by the State, sexual intercourse with a child under the age of 14, not of previously chaste character, is no crime, while the foreplay leading to that intercourse can lead to a ten year prison term. We will not impute to the Legislature the intention to achieve such illogical and arbitrary results absent a more express declaration than we have been given.
(2) We hold, therefore, that this case is controlled by our law proscribing statutory rape. Miss.Code Ann. 97-5-21 (Supp.1984). Under that enactment Malcolm McBrayer has committed no crime for S.G. was not of previously chaste character. See State v. Brammer, 304 N.W.2d 111, 113-114 (S.D.1981).
McBrayer, 467 So.2d at 648.
Thus, we do not read McBrayer as establishing child fondling as a necessarily included offense of rape.
The state argues that in order to reverse Hailey's conviction on this ground we must overrule McBrayer.. We do not agree and we expressly decline to overrule McBrayer. We merely distinguish McBrayer by noting it did not address the question of whether child fondling is a necessarily included offense of rape. In fact, McBrayer seems to support our decision, for it is clear from McBrayer that Miss.Code Ann. § 97-5-23 is not a "catch-all" provision that prosecutors might fall back upon.
The state virtually concedes that absent McBrayer child fondling should not be a necessarily included offense of rape. Under the statute as it read at the time, forcible rape required proof of forced penetration of a female child over the age of 12 years. Fondling requires proof of handling, touching or rubbing of a child under the age of 14 years by a person over the age of 18 years for the purpose of gratifying lust or indulging licentious sexual desires. Thus, the fondling statute requires proof of the ages of both the victim and the defendant which the rape statute does not. In addition, the fondling statute requires proof of a defendant's specific intent to gratify lust or indulge licentious sexual desires.
Neither does the rape statute have the same constituent elements as fondling. Miss.Code Ann. § 97-3-65(2) requires proof of penetration, which the fondling statute does not. It requires proof of force, which the fondling statute does not. At the time of the offense, it required proof that the victim was a female child older than 12 years of age, while the fondling statute requires proof that the child—not necessarily a female—be younger than 14 years of age. The forcible rape provision does not require proof of the specific intent to gratify lust or indulge licentious sexual desires. It does not require that the offender be 18 years old. Under Sanders it is possible in some circumstances to commit forcible rape without committing child fondling. Thus, child fondling under Miss.Code Ann. § 97-5-23 (Supp.1987) is not a necessarily included offense of forcible rape under Miss.Code Ann. § 97-3-65(2) as it read pri- or to amendment in 1985.
This does not end the discussion, however, because our reference point is twofold, the elements of the crime and the allegations in the indictment. Under Miss. Code Ann. § 99-19-5 the jury may convict the defendant of an offense "the commission of which is necessarily included in the offense with which he is charged in the indictment...."
If under the statute (1) the lesser offense is necessarily included within the statutory definition of the charged offense, or (2) the indictment contains such allegations that a lesser offense is necessarily charged in the indictment, then the state may receive the benefit of Miss.Code Ann. § 99-19-5 if the evidence supports an instruction on the lesser offense.
In other words, if under the facts as alleged in the indictment a lesser offense is necessarily included, then a conviction of the lesser offense may be proper. The indictment must sufficiently allege the lesser crime so that the defendant is notified of the lesser charge, however. For this, we look to the dictates of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which in pertinent part reads: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation." Miss. Const. of 1890, article 3, section 26, also provides in part that: "In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall have the right . to demand the nature and cause of the accusation."
Rule 2.05, Unif.Crim.R.Cir.Ct.Prac., requires that an indictment "shall be a plain, concise, and definite written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged and shall fully notify the defendant of the nature and cause of the accusation against him." Under these standards the indictment does not sufficiently notify Hailey that he might face a charge of child fondling. The indictment does not allege that the child is under 14 years of age; it does not allege Hailey was older than 18 years of age, and the indictment does not allege Hailey handled, touched or rubbed the child for the purpose of gratifying his lust or for indulging his licentious sexual desires.
Since child fondling could not be a necessarily included offense of forcible rape either as a matter of law or under the indictment, and there was not an additional count in the indictment alleging child fondling, under our rules, under the constitutions of both the United States and of the State of Mississippi, and under Miss.Code Ann. § 99-19-5 (1972), an instruction on child fondling should not have been given. The trial court erred in granting an instruction allowing the jury to consider child fondling and this case must be reversed.
Accordingly, the jury verdict and order of the Circuit Court of DeSoto County, Mississippi, are vacated and the case is remanded to the Circuit Court of DeSoto County, Mississippi, for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
ROY NOBLE LEE, C.J., and PRATHER, ROBERTSON, SULLIVAN, and ZUCCARO, JJ., concur.
HAWKINS, P.J., and GRIFFIN, J., concur in part, dissent in part by separate written opinion.
ROBERTSON, J., concurs by separate written opinion.
GRIFFIN and ANDERSON, JJ., specially concur by separate written opinion.
. The Legislature has since amended the age provision of the rape statute to make consent or force irrelevant for children under the age of 14. See Miss.Code Ann. 97-3-65(1) and (2) (Supp.1987), 1985 Miss.Laws chapt. 389, effective from and after July 1, 1985.