309 So.3d 1055
Miss.2021Background
- In March–July 2015 LRJ (a 3‑year‑old) lived in a one‑bedroom home with his father (Rickey Taylor) and Kadedria Hampton; Hampton cared for LRJ at times and admitted responsibility for feeding/bathing him in recorded statements.
- LRJ was taken to the ER on May 1 (frail, thirsty, hungry) and again on July 1; by July 3 he was transferred to LeBonheur where Dr. Karen Lakin diagnosed moderate malnutrition, dehydration, osteopenia, a lumbar compression fracture, brain atrophy consistent with malnourishment/dehydration, and second‑degree burns on his legs.
- Child Protection Services made multiple home visits; witnesses observed LRJ underclothed, wearing long clothes in heat, locking on the refrigerator, and other indicia of neglect; photos of LRJ’s burns were admitted.
- Hampton and Taylor were indicted for felony child abuse (burning and starving a minor). The first trial ended in mistrial; Hampton was retried in August 2019, convicted on both counts, and sentenced to 20 years on each count (concurrent, with partial suspension).
- Hampton appealed claiming (1) her Sixth Amendment/state‑law right to be present was violated when trial briefly resumed in her absence, and (2) the evidence was insufficient to sustain either conviction. The Supreme Court of Mississippi affirmed the starvation conviction, reversed and rendered the burning conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Hampton's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hampton’s Sixth Amendment/right to be present was violated when trial resumed briefly while she was absent | Trial court violated her right to be present at every stage; absence was not a knowing waiver | Hampton had notice (court announced re‑start at 9:00 a.m.), failed to appear, and the court permissibly found a voluntary waiver under Miss. R. Crim. P. 10.1 | No violation; trial court did not abuse discretion—absence found voluntary and proceeding lawfully resumed (court complied with Rule 10.1) |
| Sufficiency of evidence for felony starvation (Miss. Code §97‑5‑39(2)(a)(v)) | Evidence did not identify which caregiver caused or continued the starvation; expert testimony was equivocal | Evidence showed Hampton was primary caregiver, LRJ’s malnutrition persisted while in her care, and experts excluded medical causes—sufficient circumstantial proof of knowing/reckless starvation | Affirmed—evidence sufficient to support conviction for felony starvation |
| Sufficiency of evidence for felony burning (Miss. Code §97‑5‑39(2)(a)(i)) | No evidence that Hampton intentionally/knowingly/recklessly caused burns; expert did not opine burns were non‑accidental or identify perpetrator | Circumstantial evidence, Hampton’s statements, failure to seek care, and aiding‑and‑abetting instruction supported conviction | Reversed and rendered—evidence insufficient to prove Hampton knowingly/recklessly caused the burns; at most supported medical neglect, not felony abuse under §97‑5‑39(2)(a)(i) |
Key Cases Cited
- Taylor v. United States, 414 U.S. 17 (1973) (a defendant may waive the right to be present at trial by voluntary absence)
- Steele v. State, 544 So. 2d 802 (Miss. 1989) (Mississippi standard for circumstantial‑evidence cases: must exclude every reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence)
- Hester v. State, 463 So. 2d 1087 (Miss. 1985) (explaining limits of circumstantial proof and need to exclude reasonable alternative hypotheses)
- Vaughn v. State, 712 So. 2d 721 (Miss. 1998) (aider‑and‑abetter liability requires inciting, encouraging, or assisting the principal)
- Williams v. State, 937 So. 2d 35 (Miss. Ct. App. 2006) (circumstantial evidence upheld where medical and physical evidence excluded accidental explanation for burns)