Oral arg. – Miss.S.Ct. – Mon., June 22, 2015

At 1:30, Monday, June 22, 2015, the Mississippi Supreme Court will hear the case of Samuel Allen Nuckolls v. State

Nuckolls was convicted after a bench trial  of thirteen  separate counts of video voyeurism pursuant to Mississippi Code Annotated §97-29-63.

Any person who with lewd, licentious or indecent intent secretly photographs, films, videotapes, records or otherwise reproduces the image of another person without the permission of such person when such a person is located in a place where a person would intend to be in a state of undress and have a reasonable expectation of privacy, including, but not limited to, private dwellings or any facility, public or private, used as a restroom, bathroom, shower room, tanning booth, locker room, fitting room, dressing room or bedroom shall be guilty of a felony and upon conviction shall be punished by a fine of Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000.00) or by imprisonment of not more than five (5) years in the custody of the Department of Corrections, or both.

He was sentenced to five years on each to run concurrently.

Nuckolls had secretly recorded videos of  women in his home using a camera disguised as a pen that he placed in the bathroom. The parties stipulated that none of the taping occurred after Oct. 6, 2009.  Nuckolls was arrested on October 29, 2011.  Nuckolls argued that the two-year statute of limitations had run.  The state urged the judge to find that Nuckolls’ uploading the videos on a computer he purchased on January 5, 2011, was a violation of the “otherwise reproduces” languaga of the statute. The trial court agreed with the state.

Nuckolls’ brief

State’s brief

Nuckolls’ reply.

Watch the argument here.

6 thoughts on “Oral arg. – Miss.S.Ct. – Mon., June 22, 2015

  1. Just from the statute, I’d say noscitur a sociis weighs vs the State. All the other verbs seem to mean creating the image, not sharing or publishing it afterwards.

  2. The judges seem to think the biggest issue was venue although Justice Dickinson admonished the parties that the next time they have a venue issue, they might wish to use the word venue. Good advice.

  3. The appellant makes a passing, and possibly accidental, reference to it in his brief, but makes a more definite assertion on the subject in his rebuttal brief. But he does not use the word venue. I am not sure that the appellant knew that he had sufficiently raised venue until about three minutes in to the argument.

  4. Venue a good basis to dodge interpretation issue. But I hate when they duck stuff that will come up on remand.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s