Carter v. State
| Docket Number: | 2007-KA-00691-COA Linked Case(s): 2007-KA-00691-COA2007-CT-00691-COA |
|
| Oral Argument: | 04-08-2008 | |
* This video is best viewed in the most current version of Google Chrome, Internet Explorer with Windows Media Player plug-in, or Safari (Mac Users). |
||
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 07-22-2008 Opinion Author: IRVING, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Sexual battery - Expert testimony - M.R.E. 702 - Tender years exception - M.R.E. 803(25) - Coaching of victim - Limitation of cross-examination - Admission of testimony - Limitation of defendant’s testimony - Proportionality of sentence Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE, ROBERTS AND CARLTON, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 02-05-2007 Appealed from: PIKE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: Michael M. Taylor Disposition: CONVICTED OF SEXUAL BATTERY OF A CHILD UNDER THE AGE OF FOURTEEN AND SENTENCED TO LIFE IN PRISON District Attorney: Dee Bates Case Number: 05-421-PKT |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | BRYANT CARTER |
GEORGE T. HOLMES,
LESLIE S. LEE,
NELSON S. ESTESS |
|
|
| Appellee: | STATE OF MISSISSIPPI | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: LADONNA C. HOLLAND | ||
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 - M.R.E. 702 - Tender years exception - M.R.E. 803(25) - Coaching of victim - Limitation of cross-examination - Admission of testimony - Limitation of defendant’s testimony - Proportionality of sentence |
| Summary of the Facts: | Bryant Carter was convicted of sexual battery of a child under the age of fourteen and was sentenced to life in prison. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Expert testimony Carter argues that testimony from two experts should not have been admissible because their testimonies cannot be tested and that Daubert specifically lists testability as a factor. One of the experts admitted that it would be virtually impossible to test the accuracy of forensic interviewing of children claiming sexual abuse, as such testing would necessarily involve first sexually abusing a child and then observing the child’s responses to questioning. However, not all the Daubert factors will be applicable in each case. Clearly, the accuracy of forensic interviewing is largely untestable, and that Daubert factor therefore does not apply when determining the admissibility of such an expert’s testimony. Also, there is no evidence to suggest that the testimonies in question failed to meet any of the other factors. Furthermore, the testimonies of experts such as those in this case have been admitted in numerous cases. Therefore, the court did not abuse its discretion under M.R.E. 702 in allowing the experts to testify. Issue 2: Tender years exception Carter argues that there was a prejudicial overuse of the tender years exception under M.R.E. 803(25). At oral argument, Carter recognized that there was no objection to the repetition of the victim’s statement at trial. Therefore, any error would have to be plain error. There is no plain error. Besides the victim, eight individuals testified about her outcry statement. It is not unusual for multiple witnesses to testify regarding a child’s outcry statement in such cases. Issue 3: Coaching of victim Carter argues that the court erred in allowing the prosecutor to coach the victim during her testimony. There is no indication that the prosecutor was attempting to relay information to the victim when he stood behind individuals at the defendant’s table. In addition, this is not a case where identity is in dispute. Thus, Carter was not denied his right to a fair trial. Issue 4: Limitation of cross-examination Carter contends that his cross-examination of one of the experts was improperly limited. Any harm that Carter suffered as a result of the court’s sustaining of the State’s objection was cured when his attorney rephrased his question and the expert responded. Issue 5: Admission of testimony Carter argues that the court erred in allowing the victim’s mother to testify about abuse that she suffered as a child. She testified very briefly about what she had been through in an attempt to explain why she reacted so poorly when her daughter told her about Carter’s assault. While the testimony was unnecessary and not particularly relevant, the evidence in this case is so overwhelming that any error in admitting the statement was harmless. Issue 6: Limitation of defendant’s testimony Carter argues that the court erred in limiting his testimony regarding exactly why he had cut his hair since living with the victim’s family. Carter initially testified uninterrupted about why he shaved his hair: a prospective job interview. A lengthy explanation of why he shaved his hair for a job interview was unnecessary and irrelevant. Therefore, the court did not err in sustaining the objection. Issue 7: Proportionality of sentence Carter argues that his sentence is constitutionally disproportionate to the crime he committed. Under current Mississippi law, Carter’s sentence is constitutional. Sentences within the statutory guidelines are proper. When determining a sentence’s proportionality, the court considers the seriousness of the offense and the harshness of the penalty; the sentences imposed on other defendants in the same jurisdiction, even for other unrelated offenses; and the sentences imposed on other defendants convicted of the same crime in other jurisdictions. Carter does not dispute that sexual battery of a child less than ten years old is a serious offense that, understandably, warrants harsh penalty. None of Carter’s arguments regarding other sentences were presented to the trial court. A defendant must bring his statistical information regarding proportionality to the trial court’s attention in order to preserve the issue for appeal. Although there are Mississippi cases where defendants have been sentenced to less than life for the crime of sexual battery or other similar crimes, there are also numerous cases where life sentences have been given for such crimes. Thus, Carter’s sentence is not grossly disproportionate. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
