Opinion ID: 3161628
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Transfer Convictions

Text: ¶6. When we consider the sufficiency of the evidence, our “‘relevant inquiry is whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.’”3 “‘The state receives the benefit of all favorable inferences that may reasonably be drawn from the evidence.’”4 ¶7. The stipulation—which was the sole evidence at trial—is entirely silent as to where the transfers occurred. The State has not suggested otherwise in its brief. And when asked about the venue issue at oral argument, the State responded that, because Nuckolls resides 3 Conner v. State, 138 So. 3d 143, 147-48 (Miss. 2014) (quoting Young v. State, 119 So. 3d 309, 315 (Miss. 2013)). 4 Conner, 138 So. 3d at 148 (quoting Hughes v. State, 983 So. 2d 270, 276 (Miss. 2008)). 3 in DeSoto County, the trial judge was within his discretion to find that the transfers took place there. ¶8. We consistently have held that venue is an essential part of the State’s burden of proof that “may be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence.”5 This precedent is based on the Mississippi Constitution’s requirement that “an accused has the right to trial ‘by an impartial jury of the county where the offense was committed.’”6 Also, venue in this case—as in all criminal cases—constitutes a material allegation of the indictment that becomes a part of the State’s burden of proof. ¶9. No evidence was provided at trial to show where the transfers took place. And to imply, as the State suggests, that the transfers occurred in DeSoto County simply because Nuckolls resided there—even though he allegedly used a laptop computer that (1) was purchased in Tennessee, (2) was found in Arkansas, and (3) could operate anywhere—would strain credibility and obviate the State’s burden of proof. ¶10. The stipulation did not state—as the separate opinion by Presiding Justice Michael K. Randolph inaccurately suggests—that the transfers occurred at either of Nuckolls’s residences. For example, for Count 1 (which largely mirrors the language of the other counts), the stipulation states in its entirety: 5 Smith v. State, 646 So. 2d 538, 541 (Miss. 1994) (citing Jones v. State, 606 So. 2d 1051, 1055 (Miss. 1992); Griffin v. State, 381 So. 2d 155, 158 (Miss. 1980); Jackson v. State, 246 So. 2d 553, 555 (Miss. 1971)). 6 Rogers v. State, 95 So. 3d 623, 630 (Miss. 2012) (quoting Miss. Const. art. 3, § 26); see also Miss. Code Ann. § 99-11-3 (Rev. 2015) (“The local jurisdiction of all offenses, unless otherwise provided by law, shall be in the county where committed.”). 4 Facts regarding COUNT 1 In Count 1 the State would show that SAMUEL NUCKOLLS, between the dates of June 1, 2007 and October 29, 2011, did willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with lewd, licentious or indecent intent secretly photograph, film, videotape, record, or otherwise reproduce the image of another, to wit: Ashley Fisher, without the permission of Ashley Fisher when Ashley Fisher was located in a place where a person would intend to be in a state of undress and have a reasonable expectation of privacy, to-wit: in the bathroom. The State would offer four videos. The first video, labeled “af” shows Sammy Nuckolls setting up video equipment in the bathroom located at 9848 Pigeon Roost Circle, Olive Branch, Mississippi. That video shows Ashley Fisher enter the bathroom, undress, and take a shower. She finishes and leaves the bathroom. Ashley Fisher would testify that she did not give permission or consent to be recorded. The second video, labeled afh shows Sammy Nuckolls setting up video equipment in the bathroom located at 9848 Pigeon Roost Circle, Olive Branch, Mississippi. That video shows Ashley Fisher enter the bathroom, undress, and take a shower. She finishes and leaves the bathroom. Ashley Fisher would testify that she did not give permission or consent to be recorded. This video appears to be older than the video labeled “af” due to a piece of furniture not being present in “afh.” The third video, labeled “afp” shows Sammy Nuckolls setting up video equipment in the bathroom located at 9848 Pigeon Roost Circle, Olive Branch, Mississippi. That video shows Ashley Fisher enter the bathroom, undress, and take a shower. She finishes and leaves the bathroom. Ashley Fisher would testify that she was pregnant in this video. Ashley Fisher would testify that she did not give permission or consent to be recorded. The piece of furniture seen in “af” is present. The fourth video, labeled “afrp” shows Sammy Nuckolls setting up video equipment in the bathroom located at 9848 Pigeon Roost Circle, Olive Branch, Mississippi. That video shows Ashley Fisher enter the bathroom, undress, and take a shower. She finishes and leaves the bathroom. Ashley Fisher would testify that she did not give permission or consent to be recorded. Ashley Fisher would testify that she was pregnant when this was recorded. She would further testify that this video took place some time after “afp.” 5 Testimony would establish that these videos were found on the Defendant’s Apple MacBook Pro (Serial number W8047932ATMA1344). The videos were all located in the subfolder orange. ¶11. Nothing in the stipulation suggests where the transfer to the laptop took place. Every mention of Nuckolls’s residence—in this count and all others—pertains only to where the filming took place. And the separate opinion cannot take the position that the two events—filming and transferring to the laptop—took place close in time because, as already stated, the filming took place outside the statute of limitations, so the transfer to the computer must have taken place long after the filming. And, with regard to the transfers’ locations, the stipulation is completely silent. ¶12. Also, Presiding Justice Randolph incorrectly contends that Nuckolls waived this assignment of error by failing to obtain a ruling in the trial court. As stated, venue is a constitutional requirement, and this Court has said repeatedly “that the question could be raised for the first time in [the Supreme Court] court,” on appeal.7 As recently as 2012, we have recognized and reaffirmed this principle.8 ¶13. Nuckolls has raised this issue on appeal. Under an issue heading labeled “The Trial Court Erred in Finding Samuel Nuckolls Guilty and Subsequently Overruling Defendant’s 7 Dorsey v. State, 141 Miss. 60, 106 So. 827, 828 (1926) (citing Monroe v. State, 104 So. 451 (Miss. 1925); Slaton v. State, 134 Miss. 419, 98 So. 838 (1924); Sullivan v. State, 136 Miss. 773, 101 So. 683 (1924); Sandifer v. State, 136 Miss. 836, 101 So. 862 (Miss.1924); Pickle v. State, 137 Miss. 112, 102 So. 4 (1924); Carpenter v. State, 102 So. 184 (Miss. 1924); Norwood v. State, 129 Miss. 813, 93 So. 354 (1922);Quillen v. State, 106 Miss. 831, 64 So. 736 (1914); Cagle v. State, 106 Miss. 370, 63 So. 672 (1913)). 8 Moreno v. State, 79 So. 3d 508, 511 (Miss. 2012) (citing Gillett v. State, 56 So. 3d 469, 502 (Miss. 2010) (“[V]enue in criminal cases may be raised for the first time on direct appeal . . . .”). 6 Motion for Judgment of Acquittal Notwithstanding the Verdict or in the Alternative for a New Trial,” Nuckolls argued that “the State presented no evidence to the Court showing where the transfer took place . . . .” With regard to the State’s burden of proof, a complaint that the State failed to prove where the crime took place can be read only as a statement that the State failed to prove venue. ¶14. Further, the record contradicts Presiding Justice Randolph’s assertion that Nuckolls “agreed that the evidence the State would offer was sufficient to convict Nuckolls.” When the parties appeared before the circuit judge to submit the stipulation of facts, the parties repeatedly affirmed that they were asking the judge to adjudicate the defendant’s guilt. Defense counsel, the circuit judge, and the prosecutor each specifically noted at one point or another that the judge had to determine whether the stipulation established Nuckolls’s guilt. In fact, at one point when the circuit judge specifically asked if Nuckolls was entering a guilty plea, the prosecutor informed the judge that he had to determine Nuckolls’s guilt. ¶15. In light of these repeated comments, we cannot agree with Presiding Justice Randolph’s characterization that Nuckolls admitted that the stipulation provided sufficient evidence to convict him. ¶16. It is true that, at one point in the proceeding, the circuit judge proposed a procedure for the parties to appear at a later date and make arguments as to Nuckolls’s guilt, and for the judge to render a verdict and hold a sentencing hearing. Contrary to other statements throughout the proceeding, the State suggested—in response to the proposed procedure—that it believed the parties were agreeing that the evidence was sufficient to convict Nuckolls. 7 Nuckolls’s counsel then made a statement, which from the appellate transcript and without the benefit of being present in the courtroom, could be read either as agreement with the State’s statement or as agreement to the judge’s proposed procedure. The separate opinion reads this statement as the former, but the record supports only the latter. And even if we were to agree with Presiding Justice Randolph that Nuckolls was attempting to plead guilty, none of the required procedures was followed to ensure that, in doing so, he made a knowing and intelligent waiver of all of his rights. ¶17. But there was no attempt to plead guilty. All involved in that hearing repeatedly asserted that the judge had to determine whether Nuckolls was guilty or innocent. To adopt Presiding Justice Randolph’s reading would conflict with the rest of the parties’ and the judge’s statements. And the circuit judge apparently did not believe Nuckolls had admitted his guilt because, when the court reconvened, the trial judge began by stating heretofore the Court was informed by counsel for the defense and counsel for the state that they wished a bench trial. That is, they wanted the Court to rule on the defendant’s guilt or innocence based on a stipulation of fact. (Emphasis added.) The judge then rendered his verdict count by count, formally finding that the stipulation provided sufficient evidence to support each one. In no way did he suggest that the parties had conceded that the stipulation provided sufficient evidence. ¶18. Because the State offered no evidence to meet its constitutional burden to prove venue, we must reverse the transfer convictions.9 9 Because we reverse Nuckolls’s transfer convictions based on the State’s failure to prove venue, we need not address Nuckolls’s contention that the statute does not criminalize this conduct. 8