Middleton v. State
| Docket Number: | 2007-KA-01023-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 04-22-2008 Opinion Author: MYERS, P.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Felony child abuse - Expert testimony - M.R.E. 702 - M.R.E. 703 - Sufficiency of evidence Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE, P.J., CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE, ROBERTS AND CARLTON, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): IRVING, J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 06-06-2007 Appealed from: PANOLA COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: Andrew C. Baker Disposition: CONVICTED OF FELONY CHILD ABUSE AND SENTENCED TO A TERM OF TWENTY-FIVE YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS District Attorney: John W. Champion Case Number: CR2006-117-B-P2 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | ANDRE DESHON MIDDLETON |
DAVID L. WALKER |
|
|
| Appellee: | STATE OF MISSISSIPPI | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: DESHUN TERRELL MARTIN | ||
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 - Expert testimony - M.R.E. 702 - M.R.E. 703 - Sufficiency of evidence |
| Summary of the Facts: | Andre Middleton was convicted of felony child abuse and sentenced to twenty-five years. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Expert testimony Middleton argues that the trial court erred in admitting certain expert testimony. The trial court allowed the testimony of three medical doctors, finding that they sufficiently qualified as medical experts and would assist the jury in making its determination. When determining admissibility of expert testimony under M.R.E. 702, courts must consider whether the expert opinion is based on scientific knowledge (reliability) and whether the expert opinion will assist the trier of fact to understand or determine a fact in issue (relevance). With regard to questioning experts on theory or opinion, the Mississippi Supreme Court has held that the interrogator may frame his question on any theory which can reasonably be deduced from the evidence and select as a predicate therefor such facts as the evidence proves or reasonably tends to establish or justify. All three of the doctors who testified stated that they could affirmatively rule out accidental injury as the cause of the victim’s symptoms. All three doctors concluded that the cause of the injuries was not of an accidental nature and the symptoms exhibited by the victim pointed to some type of human intervention as the cause of the injuries since there was no evidence of external force trauma. Additionally, the jury determined that Middleton was guilty of felonious child abuse based in part on the testimony of the three experts presented by the State. The jury is the sole judge of the credibility of witnesses. Middleton argues that while one of the doctors is an expert with regard to reading x-rays, MRIs, and CT scans, he is not qualified to testify as an expert regarding the cause of the injury to the victim. The expert is a certified radiologist who specializes in the field of pediatric radiology. He testified at trial regarding his expertise in reading, evaluating, and diagnosing through his analysis of x-rays, CT scans, and MRIs. He was the pediatric radiologist who examined the victim’s CT scans and MRIs during his stay at Le Bonheur. Thus, he was properly qualified as an expert witness in pediatric radiology. Also, as the treating pediatric radiologist, he was properly allowed to testify to his impressions regarding the causes of the injuries, which he observed on the MRIs and CT scans of the victim. Middleton also argues that the court erred in allowing the testimony of one of the experts, who related that the victim’s injuries were characteristic of Shaken Baby Syndrome. Middleton argued that Shaken Baby Syndrome is not a generally accepted theory in the medical community. This expert is board certified in pediatrics and in pediatric critical care medicine and has also lectured on Shaken Baby Syndrome in Memphis. The testimony by all three doctors acknowledged that in their medical opinion, Shaken Baby Syndrome appeared to be the most likely cause of the victim’s severe brain injury. All three doctors clearly identified and defined the type of injuries present and clearly identified their basis for concluding the injury was most likely caused by adult intervention. Thus, there was no error in the trial court’s admission of this expert testimony. The witness was well qualified to present testimony as an expert in the field of pediatrics. His testimony, as the victim’s treating physician during his first several days at Le Bonheur Children’s Medical Center, was relevant. Middleton also argues that the trial court erred in allowing one of the expert witnesses to testify regarding child abuse injuries, because she had not physically examined the victim but only evaluated the victim’s medical records. This witness is a pediatrician, an assistant professor of pediatrics at the University of Tennessee and Le Bonheur Children’s Hospital, and the medical director for the Child Protection Team at Le Bonheur. The Child Protection Team’s purpose is to evaluate children that arrive at Le Bonheur with unexplained injuries. She is also board certified in pediatrics and has had further specialized training regarding child abuse. While she did not physically examine the victim, she instead relied on the medical records to support her testimony. Under M.R.E. 703, this reliance is permissible. She testified as to her opinion regarding the nature and possible causes of the victim’s injuries, which is proper. Middleton had the opportunity to discredit the expert’s theories by his cross-examination of the experts. Issue 2: Sufficiency of evidence Middleton argues that the State failed to present any evidence that a witness observed Middleton shaking the victim. Several competent expert witnesses, some of whom treated the victim, testified regarding the injuries sustained by the victim. Further, several lay witnesses, including Middleton’s aunt, family members of the victim, and a neighbor, testified to what they observed on the day the victim suffered his injuries. The jury considered all of the evidence and testimony presented at trial and found Middleton guilty. The evidence cannot be said to be insufficient to support the verdict, as the witnesses and evidence presented at trial were sufficient. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
