Jason Wright v. State of Mississippi
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2001-KA-01928-COA
JASON WRIGHT A/K/A JASON ALLEN WRIGHT
APPELLANT
v.
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
DATE OF TRIAL COURT JUDGMENT:
TRIAL JUDGE:
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED:
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE:
DISTRICT ATTORNEY:
NATURE OF THE CASE:
TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION:
DISPOSITION:
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
CERTIORARI FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:
APPELLEE
11/20/2001
HON. LARRY EUGENE ROBERTS
LAUDERDALE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
WILLIAM B. JACOB
JOSEPH A. KIERONSKI
DANIEL P. SELF
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: DEIRDRE MCCRORY
BILBO MITCHELL
CRIMINAL - FELONY
CONVICTED OF STATUTORY RAPE SENTENCED TO SERVE A TERM OF TWENTY
YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND FINE
OF $10,000
AFFIRMED - 03/04/2003
BEFORE SOUTHWICK, P.J., LEE AND MYERS, JJ.
MYERS, J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1.
Jason Wright was indicted for the crime of statutory rape. A jury found him guilty in the Circuit
Court of Lauderdale County, the Honorable Larry Roberts presiding, and the judge sentenced him to
twenty years in prison plus $10,000 in fines, and $246.50 in court costs. Wright perfected an appeal to
this Court, and raised three issues:
I. WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO GRANT A LESSER RELATED
JURY INSTRUCTION ON CONTRIBUTING TO THE DELINQUENCY OF A MINOR AND
FAILING TO ALLOW A FULL DEVELOPMENT OF THE SUPPORTING PROOF AND THUS
PRECLUDED THE DEFENDANT FROM PRESENTING HIS THEORY OF THE CASE TO THE
JURY.
II. WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AND MISUNDERSTOOD THE LAW AS TO
THE APPLICATION OF THE POST RELEASE SUPERVISION STATUTES AND/OR
PROBATION STATUTES AS THEY RELATE TO THE SENTENCE FOR A CONVICTION OF
STATUTORY RAPE.
III. WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO GRANT THE MOTION FOR
DIRECTED VERDICT, PEREMPTORY INSTRUCTION AND JUDGMENT NOTWITHSTANDING
THE VERDICT MOTIONS BASED ON THE STATE’S FAILURE TO PROVE THE AGE OF THE
ALLEGED VICTIM AND DEFENDANT.
Statement of the Facts
¶2.
During the evening of June 14-15, 2000, Sally Jones was spending the night at the home of her
friend, Ruth Vandelay.1 One girl called Wright and his brother and invited them over. When the two men
arrived, Jones, Vandelay, Wright, and his brother went to a nearby travel trailer. Vandelay and Wright’s
brother began kissing in the front room of the trailer. Jones and Wright went to the trailer’s bedroom.
There, Wright, who was twenty years old at the time, asked Jones how old she was. She replied that she
was twelve. Wright and Jones then had sexual intercourse.
¶3.
Jones’s brother interrupted Jones and Wright, and Wright fled. Shortly after that, Jones’s mother
took her to a hospital. There, medical personnel performed a pelvic examination on Jones. A sheriff’s
department investigator was summoned, and she interviewed Jones while she was still in the hospital.
1
The names of both minors have been changed to protect their identities.
2
¶4.
Wright was interviewed later in the day of June 15. During the interview, he recounted the incident
largely as described here, including the fact that he knew he could get in trouble for engaging in sexual
activity with a twelve year old girl.
Legal Analysis
I. WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO GRANT A LESSER RELATED JURY
INSTRUCTION ON CONTRIBUTING TO THE DELINQUENCY OF A MINOR AND FAILING
TO ALLOW A FULL DEVELOPMENT OF THE SUPPORTING PROOF AND THUS
PRECLUDED THE DEFENDANT FROM PRESENTING HIS THEORY OF THE CASE TO THE
JURY.
¶5.
Wright argues that he was unable to present an alternate theory of the case to the jury since the trial
judge did not allow him to submit a jury instruction that would have allowed the jury to consider a verdict
on contributing to the delinquency of a minor. We affirm the trial court’s decision.
¶6.
To justify a jury instruction on this lesser-included charge, Wright must point to some evidence in
the record that would have allowed the jury to find him not guilty of statutory rape, and simultaneously, find
him guilty of contributing to the delinquency of a minor namely, Jones. See Trigg v. State, 759 So. 2d 448,
451 (¶5) (Miss Ct. App. 2000). There is no such evidence in the record. The evidence that does exist
went to prove only that Wright engaged in sexual intercourse with Jones. There is no other act—delinquent
or otherwise—that the evidence proves.
II. WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AND MISUNDERSTOOD THE LAW AS TO
THE APPLICATION OF THE POST RELEASE SUPERVISION STATUTES AND/OR
PROBATION STATUTES AS THEY RELATE TO THE SENTENCE FOR A CONVICTION OF
STATUTORY RAPE.
¶7.
We find this issue is procedurally barred. A defendant must object to the length of his sentence at
trial for us to review it on appeal. Cox v. State, 793 So. 2d 591, 599 (¶33) (Miss. 2001). Since there was
no objection at trial, we are barred from hearing the issue.
3
III. WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO GRANT THE MOTION FOR
DIRECTED VERDICT, PEREMPTORY INSTRUCTION AND JUDGMENT NOTWITHSTANDING
THE VERDICT MOTIONS BASED ON THE STATE’S FAILURE TO PROVE THE AGE OF THE
ALLEGED VICTIM AND DEFENDANT.
¶8.
We fail to see the point Wright attempted to make with this issue. At the trial, Jones testified that
her birth date was November 23, 1987. This would make Jones twelve years old on the date of the rape.
Tracy Hill-Watts, the investigator from the Lauderdale County Sheriff’s Department testified that she (HillWatts) had Jones’s birth date recorded as November 23, 1988,2 which would have made Jones eleven
years old on the day in question. Hill-Watts also testified that Wright, during her interview with him,
supplied his birth date as March 5, 1980. At the date of the rape, he was twenty years old.
¶9.
Wright argues that the State did not prove Jones’s age. He contends that the only way to prove
her age would be to introduce her birth certificate or other official document. Age, however, may be
adequately proven by testimony. Taylor v. State, 744 So. 2d 306, 319 (¶54) (Miss. Ct. App. 1999). The
jury could believe either Jones or Hill-Watts, although Jones would presumably have a better idea of when
she was born. Assuming the alternate year of 1988 is correct, that would mean that Wright had intercourse
with an eleven year old girl instead of a twelve-year-old. Either way, he committed statutory rape.
¶10. THE JUDGMENT OF THE LAUDERDALE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT OF
CONVICTION OF STATUTORY RAPE AND SENTENCE OF TWENTY YEARS IN THE
CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND FINE OF
$10,000 IS AFFIRMED. ALL COSTS OF THE APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO THE
APPELLANT.
McMILLIN, C.J., KING AND SOUTHWICK, P.JJ., BRIDGES, THOMAS, LEE,
CHANDLER AND GRIFFIS, JJ., CONCUR. IRVING, J., CONCURS IN RESULT ONLY.
2
Hill-Watts testified that in her notes, she had written the date of birth down as 1987, but in the
notes taken from the doctor, the date was written as 1988.
4
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.