Davis v. State
| Docket Number: | 2002-KA-01738-COA Linked Case(s): 2002-CT-01738-SCT ; 2002-KA-01738-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 03-30-2004 Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Sexual battery - Expert testimony - Medical diagnosis - M.R.E. 803(4) - Tender years - Sufficiency of evidence Judge(s) Concurring: McMillin, C.J., King and Southwick, P.JJ., Bridges, Thomas, Lee, Myers, Chandler and Griffis, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 08-15-2002 Appealed from: Harrison County Circuit Court Judge: Robert H. Walker Disposition: CONVICTION OF TWO COUNTS OF SEXUAL BATTERY, SENTENCED TO SERVE A TERM OF 25 YEARS ON EACH COUNT WITH SENTENCES TO RUN CONCURRENTLY IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MDOC District Attorney: Cono A. Caranna, II Case Number: B-2402-2001-368 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Leo Luther Davis |
KAY L. WILKERSON |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: SCOTT STUART |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Sexual battery - Expert testimony - Medical diagnosis - M.R.E. 803(4) - Tender years - Sufficiency of evidence |
| Summary of the Facts: | Leo Davis was convicted of two counts of sexual battery and sentenced to serve two terms of twenty-five years. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Expert testimony Davis argues that the court erred when it allowed a clinical psychologist to testify regarding a "fist technique" which he employs young children, who are suspected of having been sexually abused, to use to help demonstrate what occurred during the incidents of sexual abuse. Because the “fist technique” referred to by the expert was only a form of information gathering, the court did not err in admitting this testimony. Davis also argues that the court erred in allowing the expert to testify to statements made to him by the victim, because the totality of the information obtained from the victim was very limited and not the type which a reasonable physician would rely upon. M.R.E. 803(4) allows admission of statements made for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment if the declarant's motive in making the statement are consistent with the purposes of promoting treatment and the content of the statement is such as is reasonably relied on by a physician in treatment. Because the expert's testimony in this case concerned matters consistent with the purposes of promoting treatment of the victim and the content of the victim’s statement is the type of information that is reasonably relied upon by a physician in treatment, the court did not err in admitting the testimony. Issue 2: Tender years Davis argues that the court erred when it determined that the victim was a child of tender years and that the statement which she gave to her school counselor had substantial indicia of reliability. There is a rebuttable presumption that a child under the age of twelve is of tender years. The relevant time to determine whether the tender years exception to the hearsay rule applies is the age of the child at the time the relevant statement was made. The victim in this case was nine years old when she made the statement concerning her sexual abuse, and Davis fails to demonstrate how he has rebutted the tender years exception. With regard to whether the victim’s statement lacked a substantial indicia of reliability, the reliability of the statement is determined by the surrounding circumstances in which the statement was given. There is nothing in the record of this case which suggests that the victim's statements were made under circumstances warranting a finding that they lacked substantial indicia of reliability. Issue 3: Sufficiency of evidence Davis argues that the evidence was insufficient. Not only did the victim testify as to what happened, but the testimony of two experts corroborated that testimony. This evidence is more than sufficient to support Davis’s conviction of the two counts of sexual battery. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
