Williams v. State
| Docket Number: | 2006-KA-01850-COA Linked Case(s): 2006-KA-01850-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 09-04-2007 Opinion Author: ROBERTS, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Fondling a child & Sexual battery - Believability of victim - Admission of videotape - M.R.E. 801(c) - Expert witness - M.R.E. 702 - Sufficiency of evidence Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE AND CARLTON, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 11-02-2006 Appealed from: PANOLA COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: Andrew C. Baker Disposition: CONVICTION OF THREE COUNTS OF FONDLING A CHILD AND SIX COUNTS OF SEXUAL BATTERY. District Attorney: John W. Champion Case Number: CR2006-67-B-P2 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | DANNY LEE WILLIAMS |
DAVID L. WALKER |
||
| Appellee: | STATE OF MISSISSIPPI | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: JOHN R. HENRY |
|
|
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: | Fondling a child & Sexual battery - Believability of victim - Admission of videotape - M.R.E. 801(c) - Expert witness - M.R.E. 702 - Sufficiency of evidence |
| Summary of the Facts: | Danny Williams was convicted of three counts of fondling a child and six counts of sexual battery. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Believability of victim Williams argues that the court erred when it allowed the prosecution to elicit an expert’s testimony that she found the victim’s version of events consistent with a child who had been sexually abused. In a child abuse case, a witness’s opinion that the alleged victim was telling the truth is of dubious competency and, therefore, is inadmissible. While the prosecutor’s question to the expert called for an improper answer when he asked her whether she found the victim believable, the expert’s answer was not improper. She responded, “Based on [the victim’s] disclosure and based upon her reported experiences of sexual abuse, my finding was her report was consistent with a child who had been sexually abused.” Such answers are not vouchers of credibility. Issue 2: Admission of videotape Williams argues that the court erred when it allowed the prosecution to introduce the videotaped interview between a forensic interviewer and the victim, because it amounted to a violation of Williams’ right to confront witnesses against him. The operative information on the video came from the victim who was not testifying at a trial or a hearing at the time. If the prosecution offered the videotaped interview for any purpose other than the truth of the matter asserted – that Williams engaged in inappropriate conduct with the victim – then that purpose is not among the record. Accordingly, the videotaped interview was most certainly hearsay under M.R.E. 801©. However, based on the fact that law enforcement was intimately involved in obtaining the interview and was present at the interview, this videotaped forensic interview was testimonial in nature. Testimonial hearsay must be subjected to cross-examination before it may be admissible. Although Williams did not get to cross-examine the victim prior to the admission of the videotaped forensic interview, he was not unduly prejudiced because he cross-examined the victim later during the trial and even called her during his case-in-chief. Therefore, any error is harmless. Issue 3: Expert witness Williams argues the court erred when it allowed the prosecution to submit a witness as an expert in forensic interviewing, using a technique called “Finding Words,” and in child sexual abuse. While an expert may not opine that an alleged child sex abuse victim has been truthful, the scope of permissible expert testimony under M.R.E. 702 includes an expert’s opinion that the alleged victim’s characteristics are consistent with those of children who have been sexually abused. The court did not abuse its discretion in accepting the witness as an expert. She possessed specialized knowledge through her education, training, and her professional experience in the field of forensic interviewing. Additionally, her knowledge in the form of her opinion, could have been helpful to the jury in deciding whether the victim was sexually abused by Williams. Her opinion was based on sufficient facts, and her testimony was the product of reliable principles and methods. Issue 4: Sufficiency of evidence Williams argues that there was insufficient evidence to support the verdict. The jury heard the victim’s testimony in which she described the various inappropriate ways Williams touched her. The jury also heard Williams’s recorded phone conversations with the victim. Thus, there was ample evidence to support the jury’s resolution. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
