Carpenter v. State
132 So. 3d 1053
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Carpenter was convicted on two counts of lustful touching of a child and sentenced to fifteen years on each count, consecutive, with fifteen suspended and five years post-release supervision.
- Hope, seven years old, lived with Carpenter and her aunt after Hope disclosed inappropriate acts by Carpenter.
- Hope reported watching explicit movies, being tickled, and having her panties taken; DHS removed Hope and involved law enforcement.
- Dr. Jule Miller interviewed Hope in March 2009 at DHS's request to assess sexual abuse and determine the appropriate action.
- Carpenter challenged the admissibility and reliability of Hope’s statements and sought a mistrial after a juror slept during evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Dr. Miller interview under Rule 803(4) | Carpenter argues the interview was not for medical diagnosis/treatment and thus inadmissible. | State contends the interview was for diagnosing/treating abuse and was admissible under Rule 803(4). | Admissible; interview fell within 803(4) as part of isolation/treatment considerations. |
| Reliability determination under Rule 803(25) for tender years | Court did not make an on-the-record reliability finding for Hope’s statements. | Court conducted a thorough reliability inquiry and made substantial indicia finding. | Reliability finding on the record; admission not reversible error. |
| Dr. Miller's testimony as expert witness outside forensic training | Dr. Miller was not a forensic interviewer and thus lacked requisite specialization. | Dr. Millers qualifications as a child psychiatrist with extensive interviewing experience suffice. | No abuse of discretion; testimony within the scope of his expert-witness designation. |
| Mistrial due to juror sleeping during recording | Sleeping juror warranted mistrial due to prejudice. | Judge replaced the sleeping juror with an alternate and did not err. | Proper replacement of Juror Three; no mistrial required. |
Key Cases Cited
- Quinn v. State, 97 So.3d 92 (Miss.Ct.App.2012) (abuse of discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
- Wade v. State, 583 So.2d 965 (Miss.1991) (foundational standard for evidentiary decisions)
- Pittman v. State, 109 So.3d 599 (Miss.Ct.App.2013) (tender-years reliability considerations)
- Bridgeman v. State, 58 So.3d 1208 (Miss.Ct.App.2010) (isolation as treatment for abuse cases supporting Rule 803(4))
- Rowlett v. State, 791 So.2d 319 (Miss.Ct.App.2001) (scope of medical diagnosis for abuse cases)
- Burbank v. State, 800 So.2d 540 (Miss.Ct.App.2001) (expert testimony admissible under 803(4))
- Anthony v. State, 23 So.3d 611 (Miss.Ct.App.2009) (affirmative reliability findings not always reversible error)
- Sharp v. State, 862 So.2d 576 (Miss.Ct.App.2004) (reliability findings under tender-years doctrine)
- Church v. Massey, 697 So.2d 407 (Miss.1997) (juror competency and overruling sleep-related concerns)