Opinion ID: 1924896
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Issue F: Residual Objections.

Text: Hall, in an attempt to include as many objections as possible, lumped several arguments into this last issue. They include: (1) improper usage of anatomical dolls before the jury; (2) the sentencing of the defendant; (3) discovery violations; and (4) other errors during the entire course of this case. (1) Improper usage of anatomical dolls Hall contends that the use of anatomically correct dolls during the course of the trial was impermissible, prejudicial, and inflammatory. This Court has addressed the use of dolls in Williams v. State, 539 So.2d 1049 (Miss. 1989) and Murriel v. State, 515 So.2d 952 (Miss. 1987). Both cases hold that the use of the dolls is a matter of discretion for the trial judge. See Williams, 539 So.2d at 1050; Murriel, 515 So.2d at 957. In the present case, the judge read from the Williams case and found that the use of the dolls was appropriate. Finding no abuse of discretion, his decision is upheld. (2) The sentencing of the Defendant In the first Hall decision, Hall was sentenced to 25 years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections. On re-trial, Hall was again sentenced to 25 years. Hall claims that the second sentence was in error because a second pre-trial report was not provided to the judge. The judge stated that he doubted a new pre-trial report would yield any additional information. This Court finds no reversible error in this decision. This Court has carefully examined the other assignments of error and finds no merit to them, either individually or collectively. The conviction of Mike Hall of the crime of sexual battery and sentence of 25 years on the Mississippi Department of Corrections is affirmed. AFFIRMED. ROY NOBLE LEE, C.J., HAWKINS, P.J., and SULLIVAN, PITTMAN, BANKS and McRAE JJ., concur. DAN M. LEE, P.J., dissents without written opinion. ROBERTS, J., not participating according to Supreme Court Internal Rules.