Pearce v. State

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to strike a juror for cause based on the fact that the juror had been a victim of child abuse, since the juror stated that he could set aside his prior experience and determine the issues fairly and impartially.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Following a jury trial, James Pearce was convicted of aggravated sexual battery, incest, child molestation, and statutory rape. On appeal from the trial court’s denial of his motion for new trial, Pearce contends that the trial court erred 1 in denying his motion for a directed verdict as to the aggravated sexual battery charge; 2 in failing to excuse a prospective juror for cause; 3 in failing to declare a mistrial sua sponte when a state’s witness and the prosecutor made allegedly improper comments before the jury; 4 in sustaining an objection to defense cross-examination on a ground other than that propounded by the state; 5 in admitting carpet and DNA evidence when the state failed to establish a proper chain of custody; and 6 in admitting certain testimony from a nurse practitioner. He further contends that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance. We discern no error and affirm. Viewed in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdict,1 the evidence at trial showed that Pearce is the uncle of B. F. When B. F. was seven years of age, her mother passed away and she went to live with Pearce and his wife. B. F. testified that over the course of the five year period that she lived at the residence, Pearce sexually abused her. The acts of sexual abuse that B. F. recounted at trial, included multiple acts of sexual intercourse, oral sex, and at least one occasion in which Pearce had penetrated his finger into her vagina. Pearce told B. F. that the sexual abuse was their “secret” and instructed her not to tell anyone.

During the summer of 2005, when B. F. was thirteen years old, she disclosed the sexual abuse to her two best friends. B. F.’s friends told their mothers about the disclosure, and the matter was reported to the Department of Family and Children Services “DFACS”.

Pearce v. State

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to strike a juror for cause based on the fact that the juror had been a victim of child abuse, since the juror stated that he could set aside his prior experience and determine the issues fairly and impartially.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report