Opinion ID: 1707183
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 18

Heading: whether the guilty verdict on count three was against the overwhelming weight of the evidence.

Text: ś 283. Evans next argues that the guilty verdict on Count III of the indictment was against the overwhelming weight of the evidence. Count III of the indictment charged that Evans committed sexual battery by penetrating the rectum of Beatrice Louise Routh. When reviewing a challenge to the weight of the evidence, this Court must determine whether the trial judge abused his discretion in denying a new trial. This Court, accepting as true all evidence favorable to the State, will determine whether the verdict is so contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence that to allow it to stand would be to sanction an unconscionable injustice. Taylor v. State, 672 So.2d 1246, 1256 (Miss. 1996), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 117 S.Ct. 486, 136 L.Ed.2d 379 (1996), reh'g denied, 519 U.S. 1085, 117 S.Ct. 755, 136 L.Ed.2d 692 (1997)( quoting Wetz v. State, 503 So.2d 803, 812-13 (Miss.1987)). ś 284. Evans argues that the only evidence regarding anal penetration was the testimony of Dr. Paul McGarry. Dr. McGarry is a forensic pathologist licensed to practice medicine in Louisiana and Mississippi. On August 11, 1991, at approximately 4:50 a.m., Dr. McGarry was called to the scene to examine the remains of Beatrice. While at the scene, McGarry testified that he observed the following: And the tissue around the genital area and the region of the opening of the vagina and the opening of the vagina and the opening of the anus was torn and blood stained. Inside those areas there was extensive hemorrhage on the inner surface of the thighs and around the genital area into the deep tissues of the pelvis. ś 285. Following the examination of the body at the scene, the remains were transported to a funeral home in Picayune where Dr. McGarry continued his examination and was able to verify his observations. Dr. McGarry's testimony detailed the extensive bruising and tearing that he found when examining the genital and anal areas. For example: A. I described in my report, and I saw when I examined that, tears of the opening of the rectum that extended from the opening upward into the canal, front and back one-half and three-fourth inch so that the rectal opening connected with the vaginal opening, there was a tear in the front of the rectum that extended into the back of the vagina. And then on the front of the vagina there was a tear going up into that canal. These were surrounded by dark bruising of the tissues that went up into the pelvis inside of that area. Q. Would you describe the condition that you found those two tubes, the vagina and the rectum, going to theirâ A. There's a small septum or a small piece ofâ a small separating wall between the vagina and the rectum that was torn from the front and front the back so that the two openings which should be separate and apart by a small intact area of skin were connected by tears. And the tears went forward beyond the front of the vagina and backward beyond the back of the anus so that these four areas of tearing converted the two small openings into one larger opening. Dr. McGarry concluded that the genital and anal injuries were due to forceful lacerating penetration of the area. ś 286. On cross-examination, Evans established that the body was in an advanced state of decomposition and heavily infested with insects during the examination by Dr. McGarry. Evans challenged Dr. McGarry's findings due to the condition of the body. However, Dr. McGarry testified that it is possible to distinguish the difference between post-mortem activity of maggots and insects versus injuries that occurred in a person before she died. Dr. McGarry testified that although insects and maggots attack the body they do not make lacerations of the tissue, they do not tear open orifices. ś 287. Evans called Dr. LeRoy Riddick and Dr. Steven Hayne to testify as to findings from their examinations of the remains of Beatrice. Dr. Riddick, the State Medical Examiner for the Alabama Department of Forensic Sciences in Mobile, conducted a second autopsy on May 18, 1993, approximately twenty-two months after Dr. McGarry. This second autopsy was attended by Dr. Steven Hayne, State Medical Examiner for the State of Mississippi and Dr. Richard Smith, a resident pathologist at the University of Mississippi College of Medicine in Jackson, as well as Detective Whitney Carvin of the Gulfport Police Department. ś 288. Dr. Riddick testified that he examined both the body, which had been preserved in cold storage, and tissues and organs which had been preserved separately in formaldehyde. Dr. Riddick also testified that he viewed photographs taken of the body at the scene depicting its condition on August 11, 1991. While noting that a number of incisions and changes had been made to the body, Dr. Riddick testified that the body had not decomposed or deteriorated from the time the photographs were taken at the scene. ś 289. With regard to the injuries to the rectal region as charged by Count III of the indictment, Dr. Riddick testified that he was unable to locate any tears or injuries to the perineum nor did he observe contusions or bruising of this area. Dr. Riddick testified that he also examined the anal region and did not observe tears, contusions, or lacerations. ś 290. However, on cross-examination, Dr. Riddick agreed that the person in the best position to render a diagnosis is the first pathologist who conducts an autopsy and visits the scene. In addition, Dr. Riddick conceded that there were no marks on the remains which would indicate that animals or insects had caused the injuries to the perineum or the rectal region. Dr. Riddick also conceded that the best way to make a determination of the condition of the genitalia would be while the tissue is connected to the body. ś 291. Dr. Steven Hayne also testified on behalf of Evans. Dr. Hayne testified that he did not observe the genital/anal tissue during the second autopsy, but was able to examine this tissue on the morning of September 15, 1993, prior to testifying. When questioned about the existence of injuries to the genital/anal region, Dr. Hayne testified that he could not exclude this type of injury, but did not see evidence of it. Dr. Hayne testified that he did not find any evidence of tearing in the anal tissue. Dr. Hayne testified that he could not conclude with reasonable medical certainty as to the presence or absence of a penetrating injury in the area of the perineum. ś 292. The jury had before it the testimony of three experts. The testimony of Dr. McGarry was unequivocal: Beatrice Louise Routh suffered a forceful penetrating injuries to her anal and vaginal areas. Dr. Riddick and Dr. Hayne both testified that they could not identify lacerations or tearing to the anal region. However, Dr. Hayne testified that he could neither include or exclude this type of injury, he simply could not identify tearing of tissue which had been preserved for approximately twenty-five months. ś 293. This Court has repeatedly emphasized our role when confronted with conflicting testimony. In Bond v. State, 249 Miss. 352, 162 So.2d 510 (1964), this Court held: It is the function of the jury to pass upon the credibility of the evidence. Scott v. State, 185 Miss. 454, 188 So. 546 [1939]. Only two witnesses testified for the state as to what happened at the scene of the homicide, while many more testified for the defense. However, the strength or weakness of testimony is not measured by the number of witnesses. Spiers v. State, 231 Miss. 307, 94 So.2d 803 [1957]. In a criminal prosecution, the jury may accept the testimony of some witnesses and reject that of others, and may accept in part and reject in part the testimony of any witnesses, or may believe part of the evidence on behalf of the state and part of that for the accused, and the credibility of such witnesses is not for the reviewing court, but only for the jury. Ivey v. State, 206 Miss. 734, 40 So.2d 609 [1949]; Cobb v. State, 235 Miss. 57, 108 So.2d 719 [1959]; Matthews v. State, 243 Miss. 568, 139 So.2d 386 [1962]. Bond, 249 Miss. at 357, 162 So.2d at 512. From the evidence presented at trial, reasonable jurors could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that Evans was guilty of sexual battery as alleged in Count III. This issue is without merit.