301 So.3d 731
Miss. Ct. App.2020Background
- Victim (11-year-old) recorded two journal entries to her school counselor describing two separate sexual assaults: one naming nicknames "G-Boy"/Gregory Farmer and another referencing "Rabbit."
- Counselor Rita Smith reported the incident to child-protection authorities and listed a name based on the journal; the mother (Tricia Jones) later showed the victim cellphone photos of Gregory and Christopher Farmer.
- The victim identified Gregory Farmer from the photos; Gregory was later charged with sexual battery.
- First trial ended in a mistrial; at retrial the State presented the victim, the mother, and an investigator; Farmer did not testify and presented only Rita Smith.
- Before testimony, the trial court excluded the victim’s second journal entry (the "Rabbit" incident) and barred explicit questioning about it as irrelevant and likely to confuse the jury under M.R.E. 403.
- Farmer also challenged the admissibility of the in-court identification, arguing the mother’s pretrial photo showing was impermissibly suggestive and tainted the courtroom ID.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exclusion of evidence about a separate attacker (right to present a defense) | Farmer: exclusion prevented cross-examination about alternative perpetrator (Rabbit) and deprived him of defense | State: the Rabbit entry described a separate, distinct incident and was irrelevant and would unfairly confuse/mislead the jury under M.R.E. 401–403 | Exclusion affirmed — trial court did not abuse discretion; evidence properly excluded under M.R.E. 403 as confusing/misleading |
| Pretrial photo identification impermissibly suggestive and tainted in-court ID | Farmer: mother showing photos on her cellphone was suggestive and created substantial likelihood of misidentification, so in-court ID should be excluded | State: the photo viewing was private (mother’s voluntary action), not police-arranged; under Perry and related precedent, no due-process bar to in-court ID | No due-process violation — pretrial identification was not the product of state action, so in-court ID admissible |
Key Cases Cited
- Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 (sets Biggers factors for assessing reliability of eyewitness identifications)
- Perry v. New Hampshire, 565 U.S. 228 (holds exclusionary due-process review applies only where identification procedures involve law-enforcement arranged suggestiveness)
- York v. State, 413 So. 2d 1372 (Mississippi precedent applying Biggers factors to pretrial identifications)
- United States v. Venere, 416 F.2d 144 (5th Cir. case recognizing private actors’ identification conduct does not trigger constitutional exclusion)
- Green v. State, 614 S.E.2d 751 (Georgia case holding televised/public identification not state action absent police involvement)
- Terry v. State, 718 So. 2d 1115 (Mississippi case affirming a defendant’s right to assert alternative theories but recognizing relevance/prejudice limits)