Wayne Jordan v. State of Mississippi
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2002-KA-02069-COA
WAYNE JORDAN
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
12/5/2002
HON. MARCUS D. GORDON
NEWTON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
P. SHAWN HARRIS
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: SCOTT STUART
KEN TURNER
CRIMINAL - FELONY
GUILTY OF GRATIFICATION OF LUST;
SENTENCED TO 13 YEARS IN THE CUSTODY
OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS
AFFIRMED - 03/23/2004
BEFORE SOUTHWICK, P.J., LEE AND CHANDLER, JJ.
SOUTHWICK, P.J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1.
Wayne Jordan was convicted of gratification of lust by a Newton County Circuit Court jury. On
appeal, he argues that a statement he gave to two police officers should not have been admitted and that
the guilty verdict was against the overwhelming weight of the evidence. We disagree.
¶2.
During the night of September 11, 2001, a child was asleep in her bed when she was awakened
by Jordan. The child reports that she woke up because Jordan was rubbing and squeezing her vagina with
his hand. She moved around in the bed in order to awaken her sister who shared the bed with her. When
the second child awoke and saw Jordan with his hand between her sister's legs, Jordan ran from the room.
Both sisters report that Jordan returned to the room and grabbed the first child by her foot and attempted
to drag her from the bed. She kicked and struggled against him. Again, Jordan ran from the room. At this
point the two girls awakened another sister and had her get in the bed with them. The three girls report that
Jordan returned to the room and apologized to the first child for what he had done and told her not to
mention his actions to anyone.
¶3.
The next day, one of the girls reported these encounters to the school counselor. An investigation
by the Department of Human Services led to Jordan's arrest.
¶4.
Jordan denied that he touched the girl's vagina. He asserted that he entered the room only to check
on the girl's fingers which had been injured earlier. He said that he touched her on two occasions that night,
once when he tripped on the rug with his hand landing on her thigh and again when he entered the room
and grabbed her feet to calm her down.
¶5.
The jury found Jordan guilty of gratification of lust. Jordan appeals.
DISCUSSION
1. Oral statement
¶6.
Jordan was in custody at the Newton Police Department. A detective advised Jordan of his
constitutional rights in the presence of another officer. Jordan acknowledged that he understood the
explanation and signed a waiver of rights form. Jordan then gave the officers an oral statement. At trial
both officers testified as to the substance of the oral statement, with some slight variations. Neither officer
recorded nor made any written notations about the statement.
2
¶7.
In his statement, Jordan indicated that he had entered the girls' room that night to tell them
something, tripped against the bed and his hand landed on the child's thigh. Jordan claims this was
inadmissible since no record of the statement had been made by the officers.
¶8.
A statement by an accused is admissible when he was made aware of his relevant constitutional
rights and then subsequently knowingly and intelligently waived those rights prior to making the statement.
Moore v. State, 493 So. 2d 1301, 1303 (Miss. 1986).
¶9.
The State offered evidence that Jordan made the statement voluntarily with knowledge of his rights.
The officers further stated that there were no promises of leniency, threats, or coercive measures to elicit
the statement. Jordan does not dispute this. Instead, he seeks a new evidentiary rule: out of basic fairness
and the ease of doing so, no statement taken from an accused during custodial interrogation is admissible
unless it is recorded or written out by the officials who procured it. He acknowledges that this is not now
the law.
¶10.
The present requirement for admissibility is that a statement be given voluntarily without promises,
threats, or inducements. Richardson v. State, 722 So. 2d 481, 487 (Miss. 1998). There are no
requirements regarding the form in which the statement must be memorialized. The present rule is
sufficiently protective of the interests of fairness and we decline to suggest its alteration.
2. Verdict
¶11.
Jordan alleges that the evidence was insufficient to permit a guilty verdict. In the precedent on
which he most strongly relies, the evidence showed that the defendant playfully pinched a three-year-old
child on her bottom and gave her a kiss on the cheek. Bradford v. State, 736 So. 2d 464, 467 (Miss.
Ct. App. 1999). The court found that this evidence was insufficient to show that the defendant's actions
were for the purpose of gratification of lust.
3
¶12.
That is hardly our situation. In Bradford the adult and children were in a crowded car and were
involved in a game. Several children of varying ages were around when the game was being played. The
children were at least awake or able to observe what was happening. In contrast, the evidence supported
that Jordan surreptitiously entered the bedroom where the children were sleeping, and touched the body
of one of the girls. When he was observed, he ran from the room. He later returned and grabbed the legs
of the child, tried to pull her from the bed, then again ran from the room after being observed by others.
On his last trip into the bedroom, Jordan apologized and requested that the child tell no one about the
activities and promised he would not do it again.
¶13.
The jury is charged with deciding credibility after evaluating conflicting testimony. Wetz v. State,
503 So. 2d 803, 807 (Miss. 1987). The jury was able to hear the testimonies of the girls and Jordan. The
jury observed their demeanor and presentation of the facts. We find no error in the conclusion reached
by the jury.
¶14. THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF NEWTON COUNTY OF
CONVICTION OF GRATIFICATION OF LUST AND SENTENCE OF THIRTEEN YEARS
IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS IS
AFFIRMED. ALL COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO NEWTON COUNTY.
McMILLIN, C.J., KING, P.J., BRIDGES, THOMAS, 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.
