299 So.3d 873
Miss. Ct. App.2020Background
- Victim (LAV), born Jan. 2008, lived with grandmother (Fulton) and appellant Marcus McCammon; alleged repeated sexual abuse (oral sex) when she was seven; disclosed to neighbor Shaynetel Robinson over a year later.
- Law enforcement interviewed McCammon twice: a voluntary, pre‑arrest recorded interview (no Miranda required); and a post‑arrest recorded interview after a written Miranda waiver (in which he changed portions of his account).
- McCammon was indicted for sexual battery (fellatio) of a child under 14, convicted by jury, and sentenced to 30 years (10 suspended) with five years post‑release supervision.
- On appeal McCammon raised eight issues: exclusion of his experts, exclusion of victim mental‑health records, admissibility of his statements, admission of other‑acts evidence, admission of Robinson’s hearsay under the tender‑years exception, a for‑cause juror challenge, denial of certain jury instructions, and sufficiency/weight of the evidence.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed in full, finding no abuse of discretion in the evidentiary rulings, Miranda rulings, juror decision, or jury‑instruction rulings, and concluding the conviction was supported by sufficient evidence.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | McCammon's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exclusion of defense experts (Drs. Heller & Smith) | Experts were not tied to facts or reliable methods and would not assist jury | Experts would show victim fabricated allegations and rebut sex‑offender profiling | Affirmed exclusion: trial court did not abuse discretion; opinions were too general, lacked fit/reliability and risked juror confusion (Rule 702/Daubert gatekeeping). |
| Exclusion of LAV’s medical/mental‑health records | Records were irrelevant or hearsay and wholesale admission unduly prejudicial | Records showed parental neglect, behavioral problems and motive/propensity to lie | Affirmed: exclusion not an abuse—records largely irrelevant to sexual conduct, contained inadmissible hearsay, and wholesale admission improper. |
| Admissibility of two recorded statements | First was voluntary non‑custodial; second followed valid Miranda waiver and was voluntary; recordings properly authenticated | Statements were custodial/tainted; second waiver invalid (intoxication/ineffective warnings) | Affirmed: first non‑custodial (no Miranda required); second followed a valid waiver and was voluntary; videos authenticated. |
| Admission of other‑acts (M.R.E. 404(b)) | Prior incidents admissible to show lustful, lascivious disposition toward this child | Prejudicial and indistinguishable from charged act — impermissible propensity inference | Affirmed: 404(b) evidence admissible for permitted purpose; limiting instruction given; any failure to clearly segregate was harmless. |
| Tender‑years hearsay (Robinson’s testimony re: LAV’s out‑of‑court statement) | Statement met M.R.E. 803(25) reliability factors after in‑camera hearing | Child had motive to lie (recent trouble) and records show manipulative behavior; unreliable | Affirmed: court conducted required hearing, made factor‑by‑factor findings, and properly admitted the statement. |
| For‑cause challenge to Juror 26 | Juror’s assurance she could be fair supported seating | Juror’s family history of a related incident made impartiality unlikely | Affirmed: trial judge’s acceptance of juror’s assurance not clearly wrong; defense elected to use a peremptory rather than press challenge. |
| Denial of proposed jury instructions (reasonable doubt and other acts) | Court’s standard instructions adequately covered burden and other‑acts limiting instruction | Requested instructions properly framed reasonable doubt and other‑acts law | Affirmed: refusals not an abuse—requested instructions impermissibly define reasonable doubt or were duplicative; S‑3 (other‑acts) given; any error harmless. |
| Sufficiency & weight of evidence | Victim’s testimony plus defendant’s admissions permitted conviction; jury entitled to resolve conflicts | Testimony inconsistent and implausible; verdict against overwhelming weight | Affirmed: testimony (even uncorroborated) was sufficient; jury reasonably credited victim; not against overwhelming weight. |
Key Cases Cited
- Miss. Transp. Comm’n v. McLemore, 863 So. 2d 31 (Miss. 2003) (trial judge is gatekeeper on expert admissibility under Rule 702)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., 509 U.S. 579 (U.S. 1993) (expert testimony must be reliable and fit the case)
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966) (custodial interrogation requires Miranda warnings; waiver must be voluntary, knowing, intelligent)
- Caldwell v. State, 6 So. 3d 1076 (Miss. 2009) (prior sexual acts admissible to show lustful disposition toward minor victim)
- Gore v. State, 37 So. 3d 1178 (Miss. 2010) (limiting instruction on other‑acts evidence)
- Veasley v. State, 735 So. 2d 432 (Miss. 1999) (presumption that child under twelve is of tender years for MRE 803(25))
- Earnest v. State, 805 So. 2d 599 (Miss. Ct. App. 2002) (rejecting admission of expert testimony that defendant does not fit a sex‑offender profile)
- Fulgham v. State, 46 So. 3d 315 (Miss. 2010) (instructions may not define reasonable doubt)