Bateman v. State
2013 Miss. LEXIS 416
| Miss. | 2013Background
- Defendant Clayton Paul Bateman was convicted of sexual battery (two counts) and touching a child for lustful purposes (two counts) for abusing his two daughters, Rene and Bailey, between March 16, 2008 and March 16, 2009; total effective sentence 30 years.
- Allegations included digital penetration, cunnilingus, and manual touching; medical exam of Rene showed absent hymen and irritation; Bailey’s exam was normal.
- Investigators, a forensic psychologist (Dr. Matherne), and the children testified; recorded interviews and a “fist demonstration” by Dr. Matherne were admitted.
- Bateman testified and denied the allegations; jury convicted on Counts I, II, III, and V; acquitted on Count IV.
- On appeal Bateman challenged: jury Instruction S-10 (cunnilingus = penetration), sufficiency/weight of evidence as to Count V, admissibility of Dr. Matherne’s “fist demonstration,” double jeopardy, speedy-trial violation, and ineffective assistance of counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Bateman) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of Instruction S-10 (cunnilingus = penetration) | S-10 correctly states Mississippi law that mouth-to-genital skin contact may constitute sexual penetration | Instruction improperly removed question of penetration from jury | Affirmed: S-10 is correct statement of law (followed Johnson/§97-3-97) |
| Sufficiency/weight of evidence (Count V: touching Bailey) | Testimony of Bailey corroborated by expert opinion was sufficient; specific date not essential | Evidence did not show touching within indictment period; prior inconsistent statements | Affirmed: evidence sufficient and verdict not against overwhelming weight; jury resolved inconsistencies |
| Admissibility of Dr. Matherne’s “fist demonstration” (expert testimony) | Demonstration is relevant, based on expert experience, and assists jury; Daubert factors not dispositive | Methodology unreliable, not peer-reviewed, fails Daubert/Kumho reliability factors | Affirmed: trial court did not abuse discretion; testimony admissible (but concurrence would find error harmless) |
| Speedy-trial claim | State: delay largely caused or consented to by defendant; no prejudice shown | Bateman: >300 days pre-indictment and long delay violated Sixth Amendment | Affirmed: Barker factors balanced against Bateman (defendant requested continuances, delayed asserting right; no prejudice) |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. State, 626 So.2d 631 (Miss. 1993) (cunnilingus can constitute sexual penetration)
- West v. State, 437 So.2d 1212 (Miss. 1983) (penetration is essence of sexual battery)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., 509 U.S. 579 (U.S. 1993) (trial-court gatekeeper standard for expert testimony)
- Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (U.S. 1999) (Daubert standard applies to non-scientific expert testimony)
- Miss. Transp. Comm’n v. McLemore, 863 So.2d 31 (Miss. 2003) (adopting Daubert/Kumho analysis under Rule 702)
- Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (U.S. 1972) (four-factor speedy-trial balancing test)
- Goforth v. State, 70 So.3d 174 (Miss. 2011) (double-jeopardy analysis where indistinguishable counts may bar retrial)