Lavon Yankton v. State of Mississippi
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2009-KA-01075-COA
LAVON YANKTON A/K/A LAVAN YANKTON
A/K/A JOHNNY TAYLOR
APPELLANT
v.
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
APPELLEE
DATE OF 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:
MANDATE ISSUED:
04/29/2009
HON. ROBERT B. HELFRICH
FORREST COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
W. DANIEL HINCHCLIFF
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: JOHN R. HENRY JR.
JON MARK WEATHERS
CRIMINAL - FELONY
CONVICTED OF AGGRAVATED
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND SENTENCED
TO TWENTY YEARS IN THE CUSTODY
OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS
AFFIRMED - 02/08/2011
BEFORE LEE, P.J., ROBERTS AND CARLTON, JJ.
LEE, P.J., FOR THE COURT:
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶1.
Lavon 1 Yankton was convicted by a jury in the Forrest County Circuit Court of
1
Throughout the record Yankton’s first name is alternately spelled Lavon and Lavan.
For consistency, we will use Lavon.
aggravated domestic violence. The trial court sentenced Yankton to serve twenty years in
the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections. Yankton filed post-trial motions,
which were subsequently denied. Yankton now appeals, asserting that the trial court erred
in allowing evidence of prior bad acts. Finding no error, we affirm.
FACTS
¶2.
On September 26, 2007, Cynthia Yankton was at the apartment she shared with her
husband, Yankton, and children in Hattiesburg, Mississippi, when Yankton attacked her.
According to Cynthia, Yankton had recently lost some of their money gambling. Cynthia
testified that she became angry and stayed with a friend for two days. Cynthia believed
Yankton was angry with her for staying away for two days. Cynthia testified that Yankton
grabbed her by the hair, threw her down, and began to kick her. Yankton then picked up a
chain and struck her several times with it. Cynthia stated that Yankton also struck her in the
head with the blunt side of a hatchet. Yankton also held the hatchet to her neck, which
caused a laceration across her throat. According to Cynthia, Yankton forced her to disrobe
and lie next to him on the bed. Yankton placed her in handcuffs and proceeded to fall asleep.
Cynthia was able to call the police. Photographs of Cynthia’s numerous injuries were
admitted into evidence.
DISCUSSION
¶3.
In his only issue on appeal, Yankton argues that the trial court erred in allowing
evidence of prior bad acts. Specifically, Yankton asserts that it was error to admit Cynthia’s
testimony that Yankton had previously assaulted her. The standard of review concerning the
admission or exclusion of evidence is abuse of discretion. Liddell v. State, 33 So. 3d 524,
2
529 (¶12) (Miss. Ct. App. 2010).
¶4.
During Cynthia’s testimony on direct examination, the State asked her whether
Yankton had ever hit her. Yankton’s counsel’s objection as to “possible prior bad acts” was
overruled. However, Cynthia responded that Yankton had never hit her, only intimidated
her. Later during direct examination, Cynthia testified that she was scared of Yankton
“because in the past he did hurt me” and she knew “what he was capable of doing.” When
the State tried to ask her how Yankton had hurt her, Yankton’s counsel objected. The trial
court instructed the State to move along and concentrate on the crime for which Yankton was
being tried. The jury never heard during Cynthia’s testimony on direct examination how
Yankton had hurt her.
¶5.
On cross-examination, Cynthia was asked about prior instances of domestic abuse and
why she was frightened of Yankton. Cynthia testified that Yankton had hit her in the past.
On redirect, the State elicited testimony from Cynthia about an incident where Yankton
forced her into the trunk of a car and then assaulted her. Yankton’s counsel objected twice,
and the trial court instructed the State to move along.
¶6.
It is clear that Yankton’s counsel opened the door to the issue of prior instances of
domestic abuse. On redirect, the State was then allowed to question Yankton about a
previous instance of domestic abuse. See Martin v. State, 970 So. 2d 723, 725-26 (¶11)
(Miss. 2007). Furthermore, the burden was on Yankton to request a balancing test pursuant
to Rule 403 of the Mississippi Rules of Evidence to determine whether this evidence should
have been excluded. See McLaurin v. State, 31 So. 3d 1263, 1269-70 (¶¶30-31) (Miss. Ct.
App. 2009). This issue is without merit.
3
¶7.
THE JUDGMENT OF THE FORREST COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT OF
CONVICTION OF AGGRAVATED DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND SENTENCE OF
TWENTY YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS IS AFFIRMED. ALL COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED
TO FORREST COUNTY.
KING, C.J., MYERS, P.J., IRVING, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE, ROBERTS,
CARLTON AND MAXWELL, 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.
