Cooley v. State
| Docket Number: | 2010-KA-01501-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 12-13-2011 Opinion Author: Irving, P.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Felonious child abuse - Hearsay - M.R.E. 803(4) - Closing argument - Admission of evidence Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Griffis, P.J., Ishee, Roberts, Carlton and Russell, JJ. Concur in Part, Concur in Result 1: Barnes, J., concurs in part and in the result without separate written opinion Concurs in Result Only: Maxwell, J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 08-16-2010 Appealed from: Copiah County Circuit Court Judge: Lamar Pickard Disposition: CONVICTED OF FELONIOUS CHILD ABUSE AND SENTENCED TO THIRTY YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Case Number: 2010-0010-CR-A |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Jeremy Cooley |
JEANINE M. CARAFELLO
M. JUDITH BARNETT |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: DEIRDRE MCCRORY |
|
|
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: | Felonious child abuse - Hearsay - M.R.E. 803(4) - Closing argument - Admission of evidence |
| Summary of the Facts: | Jeremy Cooley was convicted of felonious child abuse and was sentenced to thirty years. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Hearsay Cooley argues that the circuit court erred in admitting a nurse’s hearsay testimony regarding the victim’s injuries. Statements identifying the perpetrator in a child-abuse case may be admitted under M.R.E. 803(4). However, before a victim’s statement regarding fault will be deemed admissible under Rule 803(4), it must satisfy a two-part test. First, the declarant’s motive in making the statement must be consistent with the purposes of promoting treatment; and second, the content of the statement must be such as is reasonably relied on by a physician in treatment. Statements made by a child-abuse victim that the abuser is a member of the immediate household are reasonably pertinent to treatment, as treatment encompasses treating emotional and psychological injuries and is relevant to prevention. Here, the nurse’s testimony, which included the victim’s statement identifying Cooley as his abuser, was properly admitted under Rule 803(4). After examining the victim, the nurse asked him what had happened to him, and he replied, “Jeremy did this.” His statement was certainly consistent with the purpose of promoting treatment. Cooley was a member of the victim’s immediate household; therefore, his statement to the nurse was reasonably pertinent to his treatment and admissible under Rule 803(4). Issue 2: Closing argument Cooley argues that the circuit court erred in commenting, during defense counsel’s closing argument, on a witness’s availability. Cooley’s defense counsel failed to object to the circuit court’s comment regarding the victim’s availability as a witness. Failure to make a contemporaneous objection constitutes waiver of an issue on appeal. In addition, it was Cooley’s defense counsel who initially commented on the State’s failure to call the victim as a witness. A defendant cannot complain on appeal of alleged errors invited or induced by himself. Issue 3: Admission of evidence Cooley argues that the circuit court erred in admitting the testimony of an investigator with the Copiah County Sheriff’s Department. Prior to trial, the investigator volunteered to be stunned by a stun gun similar to the one Cooley may have used to inflict the victim’s injuries. At trial, the investigator testified that he was stunned twice on his arm–once over his clothes and once on his bare skin. The admission of the investigator’s testimony regarding the stun gun “test” was error. Given the lack of evidence that the victim’s injuries were caused by a stun gun, the investigator’s testimony was irrelevant. However, the admission of the testimony was harmless error in light of the substantial evidence against Cooley. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
