Webb v. State

339 So.3d 118

John Henry WEBB a/k/a John Henry Zachariah Webb a/k/a John Webb a/k/a John H. Webb

v.STATE of Mississippi

NO. 2021-KA-00082-SCT

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

May 26, 2022

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: MICHAEL HADEN LAWYER

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, BY: LAUREN GABRIELLE CANTRELL

DISTRICT ATTORNEY: JOHN W. CHAMPION

BEFORE KITCHENS, P.J., MAXWELL AND CHAMBERLIN, JJ.

MAXWELL, JUSTICE, FOR THE COURT:

¶1. A jury found John Henry Zachariah Webb guilty on one count of fondling and three counts of sexual battery of two underage girls, one of whom was his live-in girlfriend's daughter. The evidence showed that Webb—who was in his mid to late 30s—had intercourse with both girls numerous times, had the girls perform sexual acts on each other, and engaged in group sex with them. The oldest girl was fourteen.

¶2. On appeal, Webb asserts multiple evidentiary challenges against his convictions. He claims the judge erroneously admitted impermissible character evidence of his past, out-of-state sexual assaults of one of the victims. And he attacks several other evidentiary rulings as well as the weight of the evidence supporting his convictions. After review, we see no merit to his assertions.

¶3. As to Webb's character evidence claim, the trial judge instructed the jury it could not consider the out-of-state sexual conduct as evidence of guilt on the charged crimes. Instead, they could only consider these past sexual acts—which the judge deemed more probative than prejudicial—as proof of Webb's "motive, opportunity, and intent," among other purposes excepted by Mississippi Rule of Evidence 404(b).

We see no error in that discretionary call. Nor do we see any merit to Webb's challenges to the judge's admission of screenshots of Snapchat messages with one of the minor victims, a photo of one of the victim's diary entries, and text messages between himself and his live-in girlfriend. The record supports that the Snapchat photo was properly authenticated, and the diary entry and text messages were relevant.

¶4. Webb's final challenge is to the weight of the evidence supporting his convictions. He challenges the credibility of both of the young victims, who detailed how he molested and repeatedly sexually assaulted them. But the jury decides witness credibility, not this Court. And in addition to the girls’ graphic testimony, the jury also saw letters urging one of the girls to conceal the relationship, as well as a variety of other damning social media messages between the girls and Webb. Thus, the evidence overwhelmingly favors the guilty verdicts. We affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶5. Anna was around nine years old when Zach Webb began dating her mother, Morgan.¹ Webb soon moved in with Morgan and her two daughters in their Moscow, Tennessee home. Eventually, Morgan began leaving her daughters at home with Webb while she worked night shifts. Webb's inappropriate behavior with Anna began when she started home-schooling in the seventh grade. When Anna was just eleven years old, she fell asleep while lying on the couch with Webb. Anna felt the then-thirty-five-year-old Webb "running his hands up and down [her] thighs and biting [her] neck and [her] ear." After that incident, Webb continued to routinely fondle Anna, eventually having sexual intercourse with her. In a diary entry from this time period, Anna wrote that she was "not even a virgin anymore" and that it was "okay, because technically [she was] married to Zach."

¶6. When Anna was twelve, she and her family—along with Webb—moved to Hernando, Mississippi. Webb continued fondling and having sex with Anna after the move, with the two engaging in various types of sexual acts "almost every day." As Anna put it, the sex occurred in almost every room in the house. Morgan testified that she noticed Anna being "very flirty" and "hanging on ... very close" to Webb. She also chided Anna for routinely sleeping in bed with Webb.

¶7. Soon after the move, Anna began attending Hernando Middle School. There, she met and became friends with Vanessa, a fourteen-year-old girl. The girls’ friendship quickly evolved into a dating relationship. Anna also disclosed to Vanessa that she had been having sex with her mother's boyfriend (Webb) for a while.

¶8. Later that month, Anna introduced Vanessa to Webb. And Vanessa began going to Anna's house on the weekends to see both Anna and Webb. Webb eventually began sexually abusing Vanessa too. Webb also prodded the two girls to perform sexual acts on each other while he watched. And he engaged in group sex with the girls. The three viewed themselves as being in a "three-way relationship."

¶9. Webb began communicating with Vanessa every day via Snapchat and FaceTime. After Webb told Vanessa that he loved her, Anna grew jealous and began writing notes to Vanessa about the situation.

In these notes, Anna referred to Webb as her boyfriend and warned Vanessa to keep their "relationship" a secret.

¶10. Vanessa's mother eventually discovered the Snapchat messages between Vanessa, Anna, and Webb. She took screenshots of several of these messages. And she reported Webb's inappropriate behavior to law enforcement. Child Protective Services opened an investigation into Webb but ultimately closed it when Anna denied the allegations. Soon after, a school teacher confiscated a letter Anna had written Vanessa. In this letter, Anna went on a tirade about Vanessa ending her "relationship" with Webb and threatened physical violence if Vanessa told anyone about Webb. The school counselor questioned Vanessa about the letter. Vanessa came clean, admitting she and Anna were involved in a relationship with Webb. A detective with the DeSoto County Sheriff's Department visited the school and collected the letter along with screenshots from conversations between Vanessa and Webb. Both girls were later interviewed by Healing Hearts Child Advocacy Center, where Vanessa disclosed the sexual nature of her relationship with Webb.

¶11. A DeSoto County Grand Jury indicted Webb in the summer of 2020 for a variety of sex crimes against Anna and Vanessa.² In October 2020, a jury found Webb guilty on one count of fondling and three counts of sexual battery. The trial court sentenced Webb to serve a total of sixty years’ imprisonment.³

DISCUSSION

¶12. On appeal, Webb argues the judge made four reversible evidentiary errors. He also asserts the verdict was against the overwhelming weight of the evidence.

I. Evidentiary Calls

¶13. Webb challenges a variety of the trial judge's evidentiary decisions, which we review for abuse of discretion. Bowman v. State , 283 So. 3d 154, 164 (Miss. 2019). "A trial judge enjoys a great deal of discretion as to the relevancy and admissibility of evidence." Id . (quoting Hargett v. State , 62 So. 3d 950, 952 (Miss. 2011) ). Even when evidence is erroneously admitted, "this Court will affirm ‘unless the error adversely affects a substantial right of a party.’ " Id. (quoting Hargett , 62 So. 3d at 953 ). After review, this Court finds no abuse of discretion in any of the disputed evidentiary rulings.

A. Webb's Prior Sexual Abuse in Tennessee

¶14. Anna testified that Webb began sexually assaulting her while in Tennessee and that Webb continued to do so when her family moved to Mississippi.

¶15. At trial, Webb argued the Tennessee allegations should be excluded as impermissible character evidence. The State disagreed. It insisted that the previous sexual assaults showed a pattern of "grooming"and was necessary to tell the complete story. The State also argued the evidence qualified as Rule 404(b) evidence to show Webb's "motive, opportunity, [and] plan." The trial judge had researched the issue and agreed that prior uncharged sexual assaults are not necessarily banned character evidence. The judge pointed to Caldwell v. State , in which this Court held prior sexual acts between the accused and victim are "admissible to show the accused's lustful lascivious disposition toward the particular victim, especially in circumstances where the victim is under the age of consent." Caldwell v. State , 6 So. 3d 1076, 1078 (Miss. 2009) (quoting Walker v. State , 878 So. 2d 913, 915 (Miss. 2004) ). After considering the arguments, the judge found that evidence of the sexual assaults in Tennessee were not only relevant but more probative than prejudicial. So she admitted the evidence for the limited purposes described in Rule 404(b)(2). She also admonished the State to clarify which conduct occurred outside Mississippi. And she gave a limiting instruction, directing the jury not to consider the Tennessee conduct as evidence of Webb's guilt on the Mississippi charges.⁴ Webb argues the judge abused her discretion by admitting evidence of the sexual assaults in Tennessee.

¶16. Under Mississippi Rule of Evidence 404(b)(1), "evidence of a crime, wrong, or other act is not admissible to prove a person's character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character." But such evidence may be admissible for other purposes, "such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident." MRE 404(b)(2). This list of exceptions is not exclusive. MRE 404(b)(2) cmt.

¶17. The State has a "legitimate interest in telling a rational and coherent story of what happened ...." Brown v. State , 483 So. 2d 328, 330 (Miss. 1986) (alteration in original) (quoting Turner v. State , 478 So. 2d 300, 301 (Miss. 1985) ; Neal v. State , 451 So. 2d 743, 759 (Miss. 1984) ). And when the story involves sexual acts that bear "overwhelming similarities" to the conduct at issue, they are "undeniably" admissible under Rule 404(b) as both motive and as evidence of a "common plan, scheme, or system." Green v. State , 89 So. 3d 543, 550 n.19 (Miss. 2012) (quoting People v. Sabin , 463 Mich. 43, 614 N.W.2d 888, 899 (2000) ). In McGrath v. State , we held the familial relationship of a...