Chaupette v. State
136 So. 3d 1041
| Miss. | 2014Background
- Claire, a four-year-old, alleged that her uncle Troy fondled her; the acts occurred after Katrina while she slept in Ann’s house; DHS and police investigations followed with multiple interviews and a medical/therapeutic context.
- Dr. Dupont, a pediatrician, diagnosed sexual abuse based on history and exam; Banano, a therapist, treated Claire and discussed abuse-related therapy; neither Dupont nor Banano were formally designated as expert witnesses at trial.
- Claire and Troy testified; Claire identified Troy and described the act; Troy denied the allegations and suggested motive by Ellen against him.
- Evidence included multiple lay and expert-like statements from treating professionals; the trial admitted tender-years hearsay statements through several witnesses.
- Chaupette was convicted of child fondling and sentenced to 15 years; he appealed challenging expert testimony, credibility comment, and cumulative hearsay; the appellate court affirmed.
- Concurrence notes treating-physician testimony can be lay testimony when within treatment context; discusses proper boundaries between lay and expert testimony
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expert testimony by non-designated experts | Chaupette argues Dupont/Banano gave improper expert testimony | Chaupette contends these were expert opinions requiring designation | Harmless error; no reversible error |
| Truthfulness/credibility comment on victim | Banano’s redirect comment on susceptibility implied truthfulness | Comment not reversible under contextual limits | Not reversible error |
| Tender-years hearsay admissibility | Five witnesses’ statements were cumulative and prejudicial | Testimony probative and within tender-years rule | Not unduly prejudicial; probative value not outweighed by prejudice |
| Admissibility standards for treating physicians | Treating physicians cannot give diagnosis without expert designation | Treating physicians can testify to care, records, and conditions | Treating physician allowed as lay witness; diagnosis admissible as lay opinion |
| Overall sufficiency of tender-years evidence | Multiple witnesses testified to abuse allegations | Cumulative evidence deemed permissible | No reversible error; conviction affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Hosford v. State, 560 So.2d 163 (Miss. 1990) (therapist testimony on consistency of allegations not reversible error under limits)
- Williams v. State, 539 So.2d 1049 (Miss.1989) (testimony of dubious competency for credibility allowed under special circumstances)
- Carter v. State, 996 So.2d 112 (Miss.Ct.App.2008) (receptive handling of multiple tender-years witnesses to outcry statements; not inherently prejudicial)
- Foster v. Noel, 715 So.2d 174 (Miss.1998) (treating-physician testimony limits; distinctions between lay and expert testimony)
- Scafidel v. Crawford, 486 So.2d 370 (Miss.1986) (treating physician permissible lay testimony about care; not allowed to explicate causation or standards without expert designation)
- Griffin v. McKenney, 877 So.2d 425 (Miss.Ct.App.2003) (treating physician testimony to record and care; cannot answer hypothetical questions as expert)