Opinion ID: 1774201
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: ¶ 5. When the sufficiency of the evidence is challenged on appeal, this Court properly should review the Circuit Court's ruling on the last occasion when the sufficiency of the evidence was challenged before the trial court. Wetz v. State, 503 So.2d 803, 807 n. 3 (Miss.1987). In the case at bar, the last occasion when the sufficiency of the evidence was challenged before the trial court was when the court overruled the Motion for Judgment of Acquittal Notwithstanding the Verdict or in the Alternative Motion for New Trial. ¶ 6. This Court's scope of review based on a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence is well settled. In reviewing the trial court's denial of a motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, we review the sufficiency of the evidence in the light most favorable to the state. McClain v. State, 625 So.2d 774, 778 (Miss. 1993). All credible evidence which is consistent with Daniels's guilt must be accepted as true, and the State is given the benefit of all favorable inferences that may be reasonably drawn from the evidence. Id. Because matters concerning the weight and credibility of the witnesses are to be resolved by the fact finder, this Court will reverse only where, with respect to one or more elements of the offense charged, the evidence so considered is such that reasonable and fair-minded jurors could only find the accused not guilty. Id. ¶ 7. Daniels argues that the State failed to prove (1) penetration and (2) that the intercourse took place on the dates specified in the indictment. The indictment as to Count II, for which Daniels was convicted, reads as follows: Count II That RICHARD DANIELS, JR., ALSO KNOWN AS BUG, late of Coahoma County, Mississippi, on or about and between February 7, 1998 and February 13, 1998, in the County and State aforesaid, and within the jurisdiction of this Court, did unlawfully, wilfully and feloniously and rape, ravish and carnally know [the victim], a child under the age of fourteen (14) years, at a time when the said Richard Daniels, Jr. was over the age of eighteen (18) years, contrary to the form of the statute in such cases made and provided and against the peace and dignity of the State of Mississippi.... ¶ 8. As to his first attack on the sufficiency of the evidence, that the State failed to prove penetration, we find that the jury was presented with sufficient evidence to find otherwise. The victim testified as follows: Q. What type of physical contact did you have then? A. Sex. Q. And did youtell us whether or not you then began to have sex on a regular basis? A. Did we on a regular basis? Yes, sir. From that point the victim went into specific detail in explaining what she meant by sex. Additionally, Daniels, himself, testified that they had sexual intercourse. As to the issue of penetration, no reasonable, fair-minded, hypothetical juror could have found Daniels not guilty. ¶ 9. Daniels's second argument is that the State failed to prove that the criminal act took place on the dates specified in the indictment. The victim testified as follows: Q. Now, you told us earlier that you remember the day when Dale Jones came  A. It was Friday the 13th. Q. That was February the 13th; is that right, a Friday? A. Yes, sir. Q. Now, did you and Richard have sex that day? A. No, sir. Q. And when was the last time before that day that you and Richard had had sex? A. I think two days before that. ¶ 10. Certainly on or about and between February 7, 1998 and February 13, 1998 as charged in the indictment includes the date two days before February 13 as the victim testified was the last date of intercourse between Daniels and herself. Additionally, even had the date alleged in the indictment been incorrect, an allegation as to the time of the offense is not an essential element of the offense charged in the indictment and, `within reasonable limits, proof of any date before the return of the indictment and within the statute of limitations is sufficient.' United States v. Cochran, 697 F.2d 600, 604 (5th Cir.1983) (citing Russell v. United States, 429 F.2d 237, 238 (5th Cir.1970)). See also Cooper v. State, 639 So.2d 1320, 1323 (Miss.1994). We find that the State proved both the act of penetration and the date of the act as charged in the indictment with evidence sufficient to support the conviction. The argument that the evidence was insufficient is without merit.