Tony Earl Jackson v. State of Mississippi
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2001-KA-01993-COA
TONY EARL JACKSON
APPELLANT
v.
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
DATE OF TRIAL COURT JUDGMENT:
TRIAL JUDGE:
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE:
DISTRICT ATTORNEY:
NATURE OF THE CASE:
TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION:
DISPOSITION:
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
CERTIORARI FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:
APPELLEE
12/19/2001
HON. GEORGE B. READY
DESOTO COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
JOHN KEITH PERRY
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: JEFFREY A. KLINGFUSS
JOHN W. CHAMPION
CRIMINAL - FELONY
STATUTORY RAPE, SENTENCED TO FORTY
YEARS WITH THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT
OF CORRECTIONS.
AFFIRMED - 03/18/2003
BEFORE KING, P.J., THOMAS AND CHANDLER, JJ.
THOMAS, J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1.
Tony Earl Jackson was convicted in the Circuit Court of DeSoto County of statutory rape and
sentenced to forty years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections. Aggrieved, he asserts
the following issue on appeal:
I.
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING JACKSON'S MOTION TO PREVENT
THE STATE'S WITNESS FROM GIVING CUMULATIVE TESTIMONY ON
MATTERS PREVIOUSLY ADDRESSED BY THE SAME WITNESS.
Finding no error, we affirm.
FACTS
¶2.
On May 24, 2001, the Hernando Police Department received a call from the grandmother of the
victim. Officer Lee Hodge interviewed the grandmother and found that Tony Jackson had been hanging
around their home and that she was concerned that Jackson was having an inappropriate sexual relationship
with the victim, which had begun when she was eleven years old. Officer Hodge also interviewed the
victim, who confirmed that she had a sexual relationship with Jackson, who was in his twenties at the time.
¶3.
Based on his investigation, Officer Hodge determined that several of the sexual incidents happened
in Memphis and one happened in DeSoto County. Hodge then contacted DeSoto County Sheriff's
Department Officer Josh Anderson to investigate the allegations since the incident occurred in the county
rather than the city. Officer Hodge interviewed Jackson about the incident. The testimony at trial over
what was said during this conversation is in dispute. Officer Hodge testified that Jackson freely gave
information and voluntarily confessed to his sexual relationship with the victim. Jackson, however, testified
that Hodge came to talk to him and told him certain facts about the alleged relationship and that he
reiterated them to the officer because he was scared and wanted to get back to work and on with his life.
Officer Anderson also talked with Jackson and got a full confession, including a statement that he had
consensual sex with the victim four or five times and that it happened several years back.
ANALYSIS
I.
DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR IN DENYING JACKSON'S MOTION TO
PREVENT THE STATE'S WITNESS FROM GIVING CUMULATIVE TESTIMONY
ON MATTERS PREVIOUSLY ADDRESSED BY THE SAME WITNESS?
2
¶4.
Jackson asserts that the trial court erred in denying his motion to prevent the State's witness from
giving cumulative testimony in rebuttal on matters previously addressed by the same witness. During the
State's case in chief, the State used testimony by Officers Hodge and Anderson to show that the defendant
had engaged in sexual intercourse with the victim when she was only eleven years old. This included
testimony by the law enforcement officers that Jackson had admitted to having sex with the victim but that
it was consensual. When Jackson took the stand in his defense, he implied that the officers simply made
him repeat the facts they presented to him and he denied having sex with the victim.
¶5.
In rebuttal, the State countered this assertion by recalling Officer Hodge and precisely asking if he
gave Jackson the facts or if Jackson volunteered them on his own. Hodge stated clearly on rebuttal that
he did not provide details to Jackson but that Jackson provided them on his own. Also, the State played
a tape of the interview on rebuttal where Jackson makes no denial of having sexual intercourse with the
victim but instead admits repeatedly to having had sex with her.
¶6.
The determination of whether evidence is properly admitted as rebuttal evidence is within the trial
court's discretion. Ruffin v. State, 736 So. 2d 407, 409 (¶10) (Miss. Ct. App. 1999) (citing Powell v.
State, 662 So. 2d 1095, 1098-99 (Miss. 1995)). Therefore, on appeal, we review such a ruling only for
an abuse of discretion. McGaughy v. State, 742 So. 2d 1091, 1093 (¶6) (Miss. 1999).
Generally, the party bearing the burden of proof must offer all substantive evidence in its
case-in-chief. Hosford v. State, 525 So. 2d 789, 791 (Miss. 1988); Roney v. State, 167
Miss. 827, 830, 150 So. 774, 775 (1933). Where, however, there is doubt as to whether
the evidence is properly case-in-chief or rebuttal evidence, the court should resolve the
doubt in favor of reception in rebuttal if: (1) its reception will not consume so much
additional time as to give an undue weight in practical probative force to the evidence so
received in rebuttal, and (2) the opposite party would be substantially as well prepared to
meet it by surrebuttal as if the testimony had been offered in chief, and (3) the opposite
party upon request therefor is given the opportunity to reply by surrebuttal. Smith v.
State, 646 So. 2d 538, 543-44 (Miss. 1994) (quoting Riley v. State, 248 Miss. 177,
186, 157 So. 2d 381, 385 (1963)).
3
McGaughy, 742 So. 2d at 1094 (¶12).
¶7.
The trial court was presented with the issue at trial and ruled all the evidence would be proper
rebuttal. Rebuttal was precise and did not bring undo attention to the facts or to repeating the State's case
in chief. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Jackson's motion to prevent the State from
offering its rebuttal evidence. This issue is without merit.
¶8.
THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF DESOTO COUNTY OF
CONVICTION OF STATUTORY RAPE AND SENTENCE OF FORTY YEARS IN THE
CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS IS AFFIRMED.
COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO DESOTO COUNTY.
McMILLIN, C.J., KING AND SOUTHWICK, P.JJ., BRIDGES, LEE, IRVING,
MYERS, CHANDLER AND GRIFFIS, JJ., CONCUR.
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.
