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

Heading: The State’s Evidence on Count 11

Text: ¶19. Nuckolls argues that the State failed to prove that count eleven occurred within the statute of limitations because the parties stipulated that the filming occurred within a range of dates, including dates both within and outside the two-year statute of limitations. When considering 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.’”10 “‘The state receives the benefit of all favorable inferences that may reasonably be drawn from the evidence.’”11 And the State bears the burden to prove that an offense occurred within the statute of limitations.12 ¶20. Here, the parties stipulated that count eleven occurred between June 1, 2007, and October 29, 2011. They also stipulated that it occurred at Nuckolls’s Meadow Ridge residence, where he moved on October 6, 2009. So the date range includes a short time period—October 6, 2009, to October 28, 2009—more than two years before Nuckolls’s arrest on October 29, 2011, and outside the statute of limitations.13 10 Conner, 138 So. 3d at 147–48 (quoting Young, 119 So. 3d at 315). 11 Conner, 138 So. 3d at 148 (quoting Hughes, 983 So. 2d at 276). 12 McLaughlin v. State, 133 Miss. 725, 98 So. 148 (1923). 13 See Miss. Code Ann. § 99-1-5 (Rev. 2015) (“A person shall not be prosecuted for any other offense not listed in this section unless the prosecution for the offense is commenced within two (2) years next after the commission thereof.”); Miss. Code Ann. § 99-1-7 (Rev. 2015) (“A prosecution may be commenced, within the meaning of Section 99-1-5 by the issuance of a warrant, or by binding over or recognizing the offender to compel his appearance to answer the offense, as well as by indictment or affidavit.”). 9 ¶21. The parties also stipulated, however, that “[t]he [count eleven] video ends with Sammy Nuckolls entering with a silver laptop consistent with the Apple MacBook Pro.” Nuckolls purchased the Apple MacBook Pro on January 5, 2011. So, drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the State, we find that the State presented sufficient evidence because the stipulation gives rise to a strong inference that the video depicts the same computer purchased in January 2011, and that the recording must have occurred after that date.