Higdon v. State
| Docket Number: | 2005-KA-00941-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 09-26-2006 Opinion Author: Chandler, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Fondling - Exclusion of evidence - M.R.E. 401 - Jury instruction - Hearsay testimony - Sufficiency of evidence Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Southwick, Irving, Griffis, Barnes, Ishee and Roberts, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 05-06-2005 Appealed from: DeSoto County Circuit Court Judge: ROBERT P. CHAMBERLIN Disposition: CONVICTED OF FONDLING AND SENTENCED TO TEN YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS District Attorney: JOHN W. CHAMPION Case Number: CR2004-207-C(D) |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Kenneth Fredrick Higdon a/k/a Kenny Higdon |
JACK R. JONES |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: SCOTT STUART |
|
|
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 - Exclusion of evidence - M.R.E. 401 - Jury instruction - Hearsay testimony - Sufficiency of evidence |
| Summary of the Facts: | Kenneth Higdon was found guilty of fondling. He was sentenced to ten years. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Exclusion of evidence Higdon argues that the court erred in excluding evidence that the victim's father was in prison for child molestation, because a defense theory was that someone other than Higdon may have committed the crime. M.R.E. 401 defines relevant evidence as evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more or less probable than it would be without the evidence. Because the evidence regarding the victim’s father is of no consequence as to whether Higdon committed the crime, the evidence is not relevant. Issue 2: Jury instruction Higdon argues that the court erred in denying a jury instruction which instructed the jury to view the victim's testimony in light of the child’s age and understanding. Mississippi law does not require the court to instruct the jury regarding a child’s testimony. Therefore, the trial court did not err in refusing the jury instruction. Issue 3: Hearsay testimony Higdon argues that testimony by a forensic examiner was hearsay. Higdon’s only authority in support of his contention is the case of Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) which held that testimonial, out-of-court statements by witnesses are barred under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment, unless the witness is unavailable and the defendant had a prior opportunity to cross-examine the witness. The ruling in Crawford does not apply to the present case because the witness was available to testify and Higdon had the opportunity to cross-examine him. Issue 4: Sufficiency of evidence Higdon argues that the testimony of the victim was substantially impeached and that her testimony was the only evidence of guilt. Higdon’s allegation that the victim’s testimony was not corroborated is not consistent with the evidence. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
