Opinion ID: 1739853
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: did the lower court err in allowing the state of mississippi through its opening arguments to talk about other acts, oral sex in addition to the rape.

Text: During opening argument the state alleged that the appellant/defendant made the following allegation: She was wearing a nightshirt, pulled the panties up, had oral sex with her  . At this point, the defense counsel moved for mistrial. The trial court properly overruled the motion for mistrial under the auspices of Oates v. State, 437 So.2d 441 (Miss. 1983). This was also a rape case wherein testimony involving oral sex was admitted. This Court stated: Appellant contends that the trial court erroneously permitted the prosecutrix to relate that immediately after she was taken from the car to the side of the road by appellant, he forced her into an act of oral sex before actually raping her. It is contended that this was also evidence of another crime and inadmissible. Again, it is clear that this testimony was admissible as being part of the res gestae surrounding the entire occurrence and cannot be separated from all that was happening from the beginning to the end of the actions taken against the prosecutrix during the course of the events. 437 So.2d at 442. Likewise in the case sub judice, testimony regarding oral sex was part of the res gestae. The foregoing authority disposes of appellant's argument without further need of discussion.