Britt, et al. v. State


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2001-KA-01548-COA

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 05-06-2003
Opinion Author: King, P.J.
Holding: Affirmed

Additional Case Information: Topic: Felony child abuse - Hearsay - Unavailability of children - M.R.E. 804(a)(6) - Notice - M.R.E. 804(b)(5) - Admissibility of children’s statements
Judge(s) Concurring: McMillin, C.J., Bridges, Thomas, Lee, Irving, Myers, Chandler and Griffis, JJ.
Concurs in Result Only: Southwick, P.J.
Procedural History: Jury Trial
Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 09-20-2001
Appealed from: Panola County Circuit Court
Judge: George C. Carlson, Jr.
Disposition: CONVICTED OF FELONY CHILD ABUSE AND SENTENCED TO TWENTY YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS.
District Attorney: John W. Champion
Case Number: CR-2001-34-CP2

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: Jennifer Nicole Britt and Larry Wayne Doubleday




SARAH C. JUBB DAVID CLAY VANDERBURG ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: CHARLES W. MARIS



 

Appellee: State of Mississippi SARAH C. JUBB DAVID CLAY VANDERBURG ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: CHARLES W. MARIS  

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: Felony child abuse - Hearsay - Unavailability of children - M.R.E. 804(a)(6) - Notice - M.R.E. 804(b)(5) - Admissibility of children’s statements

Summary of the Facts: Jennifer Britt and Larry Doubleday were tried together and convicted of felony child abuse. They were each sentenced to twenty years. They appeal.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Hearsay Britt argues that the court erred by allowing several of the witnesses to give testimony concerning what the children said about who caused the victim’s injuries, because the children were declared unavailable as witnesses by the court and particularized guarantees of trustworthiness needed to be shown from the totality of circumstances. The issue is barred for failure to support the argument with citations to the authorities, statutes and parts of the record relied upon. Issue 2: Unavailability Britt argues that the court erred in determining that the children were unavailable as witnesses, because it resulted in the denial of her rights of confrontation and cross-examination of her accusers. Britt fails to cite to any case or statutory authority and fails to support her assertions with any kind of argument or logic or reason. Doubleday also argues this as error, because the testimony of a licensed, professional counselor that there would be substantial impairment of the children's psychological health if they were compelled to testify in the presence of Britt and Doubleday had more to do with the atmosphere of the courtroom itself rather than the presence of the appellants. The court was entitled to rely on the uncontested testimony of the expert and did not abuse its discretion in finding that the children were unavailable within the meaning of M.R.E. 804(a)(6). Doubleday also argues that the State failed to provide adequate notice of its contention that the children were unavailable as required by M.R.E. 804(b)(5). The State gave the required M.R.E. 804(b)(5) notice under the first indictment which was dismissed because of a discrepancy dealing with the county where the crimes were charged. Britt and Doubleday received this notice approximately five months before they were brought to trial. The notice under the dismissed indictment was sufficient to fulfill the notice requirement under M.R.E. 804(b)(5). Issue 3: Admissibility of children’s statements Doubleday argues that the children’s statements were inadmissible on the basis of M.R.E. 803(1) and (2), the present sense impression and excited utterance exceptions. This issue is moot since the court did not abuse its discretion in finding the statements admissible.


Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court