Title: Hicks v. State
Citation: 441 So. 2d 1359
Docket Number: 54585
State: Mississippi
Issuer: Mississippi Supreme Court
Date: December 14, 1983

441 So. 2d 1359 (1983) Jimmy HICKS, Sr. v. STATE of Mississippi. No. 54585. Supreme Court of Mississippi. December 14, 1983. James P. Streetman, III, Barnett &amp; Streetman, Jackson, for appellant. Bill Allain, Atty. Gen. by Billy L. Gore, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee. Before WALKER, BOWLING and PRATHER, JJ. PRATHER, Justice, for the Court: The defendant, Jimmy Hicks, Sr., was convicted in the Circuit Court, First Judicial District of Hinds County, of the crime of sexual battery (MCA § 97-3-95 (1972) (Supp. 1983)), with his twelve year old natural daughter, Remona Hicks, and sentenced to twenty years in the Mississippi Department *1360 of Corrections. Hicks appeals and assigns: (1) That the trial court erred by allowing prosecutrix, Remona Hicks, to testify about incidences of sexual battery between her and her father which occurred prior to the act alleged in the indictment; and (2) That Mississippi Code Annotated section 97-3-95 (1972) (Supp. 1983) is unconstitutional in that it is overreaching, overbroad, and places an unfair burden on the defendant, denying him due process of law. The defendant was charged in the indictment with unlawfully committing a sexual penetration of Remona Hicks on November 9, 1981, in violation of Mississippi Code Annotated section 97-3-95 (1972) (Supp. 1983), which statute is as follows: Section 97-3-97 defines sexual penetration as: Remona Hicks, a twelve year old female, was at home with her father, twelve year old sister, and six year old brother on the night of November 9, 1981, while her mother was at work. On that night Jimmy Hicks had sexual intercourse with his daughter, but without her consent. The first time that he had intercourse with her was in September, 1981. Also, on three other occasions between that time and November 9, he had sexual intercourse with her. The only incident for which Hicks was indicted was the one that occurred on November 9. The prosecutrix was qualified as to her knowledge of what "sexual intercourse" meant and she testified as to all these incidents, over objection. Remona's sister corroborated her testimony as to the father's taking Remona alone into a bedroom on one occasion. The issue presented is whether or not in cases of sexual battery prosecuted under section 97-3-95, Mississippi Code Annotated (1972) (Supp. 1982), prior sexual acts with the same person and of the same kind as that involved in the main transaction are logically relevant to the issue being tried and, thus, admissible at trial. Appellant contends that the twelve year old victim's testimony relative to four separate and prior instances of sexual penetration were inadmissible in his prosecution for sexual battery. The testimony developed (1) that each prior act of sexual penetration was performed with the same youthful victim; (2) that each incident occurred at the victim's home during a time in the day or night when the complainant's mother was at work; (3) that each one of the incidents occurred within a two and a half month timeframe; (4) that each involved actual penetration of the defendant's penis into the vaginal orifice of his daughter; (5) that each act of sexual penetration occurred without the consent of the victim; and (6) the defendant, during three of the four prior acts of intercourse, achieved an orgasm. The general rule in Mississippi is that in criminal prosecutions evidence which shows that the accused is guilty of the commission of other offenses at other times is not admissible. Brooks v. State, 242 So. 2d 865 (Miss. 1971). But, the rule has exceptions: "Evidence of other crimes is admissible to prove identity of the defendant, scienter or guilty or criminal knowledge, criminal intent or purpose, motive, a plan or system of criminal action where a continuing offense is charged, or where other crimes form a part of the res gestae." Lee v. State, 244 Miss. 813, 146 So. 2d 736 *1361 (1962); Whitlock v. State, 419 So. 2d 200 (Miss. 1982). The Brooks case, also stated: We hold that the cases of Speagle v. State, 390 So. 2d 990 (Miss. 1980); Davis v. State, 367 So. 2d 445 (Miss. 1979); and Brooks v. State, supra, controls the posture of the present assignment of error. The holdings in these three cases were highlighted in Otis v. State, 418 So. 2d 65, 68 (Miss. 1982), where we find the following: There is no practical distinction between the facts in Speagle, Davis and Brooks and those existing in the case sub judice. The acts constituting the offenses charged are essentially the same because all involved a form of sexual penetration which today would be clearly proscribed by section 97-3-95. The second issue involves the constitutionality of Mississippi's sexual battery statute as being overbroad, and over-reaching. Also, he alleges that this 1980 statute gives the State advantage as to proof and that the criminal acts that it is designed to cover are covered under other more extensive sections of the code. We hold that the statute which expressly and clearly proscribes the sexual penetration of another person without his or her consent is unambiguous. We find no constitutional invalidity of this statute on the charge made here of Hicks. On this record, we find no error. AFFIRMED. PATTERSON, C.J., WALKER and BROOM, P.JJ., and ROY NOBLE LEE, BOWLING, HAWKINS, DAN M. LEE and ROBERTSON, JJ., concur.