Thomas Allen Chatman a/k/a Thomas A. Chatman a/k/a Thomas Chatman v. State of Mississippi

• Court: Court of Appeals of Mississippi
• Decided: August 15, 2023
• Docket: 2022-KA-00386-COA
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

NO. 2022-KA-00386-COA

THOMAS ALLEN CHATMAN A/K/A THOMAS APPELLANT A. CHATMAN A/K/A THOMAS CHATMAN

v.

STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 04/05/2022 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. ROBERT B. HELFRICH COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: FORREST COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: OFFICE OF STATE PUBLIC DEFENDER BY: ZAKIA BUTLER CHAMBERLAIN ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: BARBARA WAKELAND BYRD DISTRICT ATTORNEY: PATRICIA A. THOMAS BURCHELL NATURE OF THE CASE: CRIMINAL - FELONY DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED - 08/15/2023 MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:

BEFORE WILSON, P.J., McCARTY AND EMFINGER, JJ.

McCARTY, J., FOR THE COURT:

¶1. A defendant was found guilty of two counts of the sexual battery of a ten-year-old.

Finding the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction, we affirm.

BACKGROUND

¶2. Kevin was ten years old and lived with his father, grandmother, and sister.1 His father

was chronically ill, and at some point, caring for Kevin’s father became too much for his

grandmother to handle on her own. So Kevin’s father invited a friend, Thomas Chatman, to

1 This is a pseudonym, as we do not identify victims of sexual assault. live with and help care for him.

¶3. Chatman was not allowed to sleep in the house. He was instead given access to a shed

on the back of the property. He was allowed to enter the home to use the bathroom, cook,

and shower.

¶4. But Chatman’s stay was not without controversy. During his time there, Kevin’s

grandmother discovered Chatman “had blown up balloons or gloves to teach Kevin how to

suck a penis.” After this bizarre encounter with the ten-year-old, Kevin’s grandmother

demanded Chatman leave the home. But because the father’s health continued to decline,

he was later asked to come back. Chatman returned and cared for Kevin’s father until his

death.

¶5. After the father died, the grandmother overheard Kevin and his sister arguing. During

the argument, Kevin’s sister referenced an incident of sexual abuse involving Chatman.

Kevin’s grandmother took the child to the police department to report the incident. After an

investigation, Chatman was arrested and ultimately indicted for two counts of sexual battery.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶6. At trial, the jury first heard from Kevin’s grandmother. She testified that she heard

Kevin and his sister having an argument. During that argument, she heard the sister say to

Kevin, “I’m gonna tell grannie that you had Thomas stick his penis in you.” She further

testified that when she asked Kevin if that was true, he replied, “[Y]es, ma’am.” She also

told the jury that Kevin stated he did not tell her because “Thomas told me he was gonna

2 finish killing my daddy and kill you, if I tell you.” Per her testimony, the grandmother called

the police after learning of the incident.

¶7. Kevin also testified. He stated that although Chatman was made to live outside in a

shed, he was allowed to come inside the house to help care for his dad. He said the

defendant would sometimes sleep on the floor in his dad’s room. He stated that on the night

of the incident, Chatman was on the floor in his dad’s room.

¶8. Kevin testified he got up that night to go to the bathroom. He said just as he was

about to leave the bathroom, Chatman walked in, closed the door, and locked it. Kevin

testified the defendant then put his hand over his mouth so that he could not yell and told him

to “bend over.” He told the jury Chatman pulled his penis out of his pants, and then “he

stuck it between my buttcheeks[.]”

¶9. The jury also heard the following exchange between Kevin and the State:

Q. . . . Did that – did his penis or thingy go inside of you?

A. Yes.

Q. Did it hurt?

....

Q. What else happened after that? Were you allowed to leave the bathroom, or did more things happen?

A. He stuffed his –

Q. I know its tough to say. And if you need to take a second, you can do that.

3 A. Well, after he did that, he zipped his pants back up. Then unbuckled his belt. Then pulled his underwear and his pants down, and then he made me suck his penis. And then he told me to pull down my pants, and then he sucked my penis. And then after that, he told me if I told my mom or my dad, he was gonna kill my dad.

¶10. When asked if there was “anything that happened to you afterwards with your booty

that hurt,” Kevin testified, “I was bleeding.”

¶11. Chatman took the stand in his own defense. Throughout his testimony, he maintained

he never had any inappropriate contact with Kevin.

¶12. The jury convicted Chatman of two counts of sexual battery. He was sentenced to

serve forty years for his conviction of Count I and thirty years for Count II. The court

ordered the sentence for Count II to run consecutively to the sentence for Count I.

¶13. Chatman appealed, and the case was assigned to us for review.

DISCUSSION

There was sufficient evidence to support a conviction of sexual battery.

¶14. Chatman’s sole assignment of error is that there was insufficient evidence to support

his conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. Specifically, he argues “the State did not

establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Chatman penetrated” the child.

¶15. “The standard of review for a trial court’s ruling on the legal sufficiency of the

evidence is de novo.” Carpenter v. State, 311 So. 3d 1268, 1275 (¶26) (Miss. Ct. App.

2021). “In considering whether the evidence is legally sufficient to sustain a conviction, the

critical inquiry is whether the evidence shows beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused

4 committed the act charged, and that he did so under such circumstances that every element

of the offense existed.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). “When we address a

challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, all credible evidence of guilt must be taken as

true, and the State is entitled to all reasonable inferences that may be drawn therefrom.” Id.

¶16. Precedent establishes what level of proof is required in a case of this type. “Proof of

penetration is not necessary if there is evidence that the private parts of the child younger

than sixteen have been lacerated or torn.” Bishop v. State, 282 So. 3d 633, 639 (¶24) (Miss.

Ct. App. 2019). “Absent such evidence, proof of penetration is required.” Id. “Actual

medical evidence of penetration, however, is not necessary,” and penetration “need not be

proved in any particular form of words . . . .” Id. at 640 (¶24). “Sufficient evidence may

include medical testimony or testimony by the victim.” Id. “Thus, circumstantial evidence

may suffice so long as penetration is established beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id.

¶17. Chatman argues the testimony given at trial merely “suggested penetration” but lacked

the specificity required to sustain a conviction. However, the jury heard Kevin answer in the

affirmative when asked if Chatman’s “penis or thingy” went inside him. The victim told the

jury it hurt when it happened and that he was later bleeding from his rear end. Under our

standard of review, where all credible evidence of guilt must be taken as true and all

reasonable inferences in favor of the prosecution allowed, a rational jury could have found

beyond a reasonable doubt that the pain and bleeding Kevin experienced were the result of

penetration.

5 ¶18. Chatman next argues there was no medical exam or other evidence that verified Kevin

suffered from rectal bleeding. He also argues there was “no evidence, medical or otherwise,

established that [Kevin’s] purported bleeding resulted from the alleged penetration[.]” He

argues that even if Kevin did in fact experience rectal bleeding, there are many possible

causes that are unrelated to sex.

¶19. First, our precedent holds that “actual medical evidence of penetration . . . is not

required.” Id. at 639-40 (¶24). Also, any question regarding the cause of Kevin’s rectal

bleeding was for the jury to decide, as “it is the jury’s responsibility as fact-finder to resolve

conflicting testimony and evaluate the credibility of witnesses.” Vinzant v. State, 99 So. 3d

767, 774 (¶25) (Miss. Ct. App. 2012). As set out above, the jury heard Kevin’s testimony

that Chatman put his penis inside him and that later he was bleeding from his rear end. There

was sufficient proof to convict Chatman of the two counts of sexual battery.

¶20. AFFIRMED.

BARNES, C.J., CARLTON AND WILSON, P.JJ., GREENLEE, WESTBROOKS, McDONALD, LAWRENCE, SMITH AND EMFINGER, JJ., CONCUR.