Faulkner v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

17 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Considering ’ whether Faulkner’s substantial rights were violated, we note not all Variances between an indictment and jury instructions are fatal. To properly categorize an instruction as error, its “variance from the language of the indictment ‘must be material.]’ ” Nix [v. State], 8 So.3d [141] at 145 (¶ 16) [(2009)] (quoting Williams v. State, 445 So.2d 798, 806 (Miss.1984)). While trial judges should generally strive to craft jury instructions that track the indictment’s language, an instruction is not necessarily fatally defective for failure to do so if the instruction “accurately follow[s] the requisite elements of the crime.” Duplantis v. State, 708 So.2d 1327, 1344 (¶ 76) (Miss.1998). Count VII alleged Faulkner had directed A.F. to “put his mouth on the penis of J.P.,” but the jury was instructed it could convict Faulkner on this count if it found he had directed A.F. to “put his penis in the mouth of [J.P.] Assessing the effect of this variance on the integrity of Faulkner’s trial, we point out that while the language differed, the essence of the charged offense' remained unchanged, as none of the requisite elements were substantially altered. The instruction still required the jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Faulkner, an adult, directed A.F., a minor, to commit sexual battery by engaging in fellatio with another child, J.P. At trial, both children testified that Faulkner had instructed them to place their penises in the other’s -mouth. And the jury was”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Dewayne Graham v. State of Mississippi · 271 So. 3d 650 - Faron Young v. State of Mississippi

2. “[I]t is possible to commit an unlawful touching without committing sexual battery. And where sufficient evidence exists to support separate and distinct acts of fondling and sexual battery, separate indictable charges can properly stand without implicating jeopardy issues. This is so even if the criminal acts are closely connected or based on a common nucleus of fact....”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Ricky L. Shoemaker, Sr. v. State of Mississippi

3. “[0]ur appellate courts have held that the unsupported testimony of a sex-crime victim is sufficient to support a guilty verdict where that testimony is not discredited or contradicted by other credible evidence, especially if the conduct of the victim is consistent with the conduct of one who has been victimized by a sex crime,”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 183 So. 3d 112 - Elbert Davis v. State of Mississippi