Jordan v. State, 166 So. 3d 1

En banc Mississippi Supreme Court dismisses four writs of certiorari challenging a criminal conviction.
Defendants Timothy Jordan, Glenn Grose, and Johnny Grose were convicted of multiple counts related to sexual abuse of Tim’s daughter A.B.
Evidence at trial included a videotaped forensic interview of A.B. conducted under an investigative framework and a plea-related testimony from Krystal Jordan.
Trial included testimony from Krystal Jordan (plea participant) and other lay/witness testimony; Krystal testified under a plea agreement.
The court granted certiorari to review whether testimonial evidence and related Confrontation Clause issues violated defendants’ rights and affected the conviction.
Separate concurring statement argues for a new trial due to the admission of a videotaped forensic interview and certain testimony.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether A.B.’s videotaped forensic interview violated the Confrontation Clause	A.B.’s statements were non-testimonial and admissible under hearsay rules	The forensic interview was testimonial and its admission violated the Sixth Amendment	Writs dismissed; overall ruling rejects reversal on this issue
Whether Krystal Jordan's statements via her attorney were admissible as prior consistent statements	Fondren’s testimony rebutted allegations of fabrication under Rule 801(d)(1)(B)	Admissions occurred after motive to fabricate arose; not admissible to rehabilitate credibility	Writs dismissed; issue not decisive in the order
Effect of Confrontation-Clause error on the verdict	Error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given remaining evidence	Confrontation-Clause violation was not harmless	Writs dismissed; no remand for new trial in the main order
Impact of testimonial evidence on overall weight of the conviction	Evidence other than the testimonial interview supported guilt	Key testimonial evidence was improperly admitted	Writs dismissed; no reversal on this theory in the main order

Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (confrontation right and testimonial hearsay framework)
Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (U.S. 2006) (limits on testimonial vs. non-testimonial statements in emergencies)
Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (U.S. 2009) (business-record-like affidavits and testimonial concerns)
Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 131 S. Ct. 2705 (U.S. 2011) (requirements for testimonial evidence and confrontation rights)
Giles v. California, 554 U.S. 353 (U.S. 2008) (rule for confrontation in accomplice/household settings)
Michigan v. Bryant, 562 U.S. 344 (U.S. 2011) (primary purpose test for determining testimonial nature of statements)
Hobgood v. State of Mississippi, 926 So.2d 847 (Miss. 2006) (testimony admissibility in child abuse cases via tender-years exception)
Bishop v. State, 982 So.2d 371 (Miss. 2008) (statements to mother/therapist may be nontestimonial)
Tome v. U.S., 513 U.S. 150 (U.S. 1995) (prior consistent statements must predate motive to fabricate)
Owens v. State, 666 So.2d 814 (Miss. 1995) (limits on prior consistent statements to rebut fabrication)
Davis v. Bryant, see Michigan v. Bryant (U.S. 2011) (included for context on primary purpose analysis)