Anthony v. State
| Docket Number: | 2008-KA-01348-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 12-15-2009 Opinion Author: Maxwell, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Felony child abuse - Admission of abuse record - M.R.E. 801(c) - M.R.E. 803(4) & (6) - M.R.E. 103(a) - M.R.E. 703 - Confrontation clause -Sufficiency of evidence Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, BARNES, ISHEE, ROBERTS AND CARLTON, JJ. Concurs in Result Only: GRIFFIS, J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 08-22-2007 Appealed from: MARSHALL COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: Andrew K. Howorth Disposition: CONVICTED OF FELONY CHILD ABUSE AND SENTENCED TO TWENTY YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS District Attorney: Benjamin F. Creekmore Case Number: 2006-000012 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | FONSHANTA ANTHONY |
HUNTER NOLAN AIKENS |
|
|
| Appellee: | STATE OF MISSISSIPPI | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: LAURA HOGAN TEDDER | ||
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 - Admission of abuse record - M.R.E. 801(c) - M.R.E. 803(4) & (6) - M.R.E. 103(a) - M.R.E. 703 - Confrontation clause -Sufficiency of evidence |
| Summary of the Facts: | Fonshanta Anthony was convicted of felony child abuse and sentenced to twenty years’ imprisonment. She appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Admission of abuse record Anthony argues that the court erred in admitting the abuse record created by the victim’s caregivers at Shriners Hospital, because it contained inadmissible hearsay, admission of the record violated the Confrontation Clause, and admission of the record exceeded the scope of M.R.E. 702 and 703. The abuse record clearly meets the definition of hearsay under M.R.E. 801(c), so its admissibility hinges on whether a hearsay exception applies. While the abuse record is perhaps admissible under M.R.E. 803(6), the exception rooted in M.R.E. 803(4) is more applicable. Rule 803(4) exempts “Statements for Purposes of Medical Diagnosis and Treatment” from the otherwise stringent prohibition against hearsay, regardless of the availability of the declarant. To be admissible under Rule 803(4), the declarant’s motive in making the statement must be consistent with the purposes of promoting treatment, and the content of the statement must be such as is reasonably relied on by a physician in treatment. Here, the abuse record was completed by the caregivers at Shriners Hospital. The State's expert testified that a physician would have requested the abuse record be composed. He also testified that the record was compiled during the victim’s care, and that he would have personally participated in preparing the document. It was made for the purpose of promoting the victim’s treatment and ensuring that he would be discharged to a safe environment. Thus, the report was admissible under Rule 803(4). Even if admission of the abuse record or any part of it constituted error, the error was harmless under M.R.E. 103(a). The information in the abuse record was merely cumulative of other evidence produced at trial. With regard to Anthony's Confrontation Clause argument, the abuse record was not created for the purpose of aiding the prosecution and is therefore not testimonial. Only testimonial hearsay is capable of violating the Sixth Amendment. The State's expert witness properly relied on the abuse record in forming his opinion that the victim’s burns were intentionally inflicted by Anthony, which he was authorized to do under M.R.E. 703. Issue 2: Sufficiency of evidence Anthony argues because the case was circumstantial, the State was required to prove her guilt not only beyond a reasonable doubt, but also to the exclusion of every reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence. Circumstantial evidence in a criminal case is entitled to as much weight as any other kind of evidence, and, in fact, a conviction may be had on circumstantial evidence alone. Such circumstantial evidence need not exclude every possible doubt, but only every other reasonable hypothesis of innocence. Any conflicts created by the circumstantial evidence presented are for the jury to resolve. Anthony’s claims of how the victim was burned are not consistent with the medical evidence or her own statements given to authorities and medical personnel. The scenarios offered by Anthony do not explain the medical evidence. Thus, considering the evidence in light most favorable to the State, there is sufficient evidence from which the jury could have reasonably inferred that Anthony intentionally held the victim down in scalding water. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
