Melvin Patrick Mason v. State of Mississippi
203 So. 3d 732
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Defendant Melvin P. Mason lived with his two young nieces and their mother; in March 2012 one niece (M.C.) disclosed to a friend that Mason had sexually abused her and her sister (R.C.).
- Police and a forensic interviewer separately interviewed both girls; recorded and testimonial pretrial statements described multiple acts of sexual contact over several months.
- A grand jury indicted Mason on counts of sexual battery and multiple counts of touching a child for lustful purposes; at trial the jury convicted on four counts and the court declared mistrial on remaining counts.
- The State moved to admit the girls’ pretrial statements under the tender-years exception (M.R.E. 803(25)); the court held a hearing outside the jury, found the statements sufficiently reliable, and admitted them over defense objection.
- Mason argued on appeal that admission of the pretrial statements (and cumulative errors) violated the rules on hearsay and unfairly bolstered the girls’ testimony; the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Mason) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility under Rule 803(25) (tender-years) | Statements admissible because girls were of tender years or otherwise showed substantial indicia of reliability; court held hearing and made on‑record findings | Admission was an abuse of discretion because court failed to fully evaluate reliability factors and thus impermissibly bolstered testimony | Court affirmed: trial court conducted required Rule 803(25) hearing, made factual findings (age, maturity, interview methods, spontaneity, lack of motive), and did not abuse discretion |
| Admission under Rule 803(4) (medical diagnosis/treatment) | Statements to psychologist (Dr. Matherne) were made for diagnosis/treatment and therefore admissible | Argued improper hearsay / bolstering | Court affirmed: psychologist’s hearsay testimony admissible under M.R.E. 803(4) |
| Confrontation Clause / testimonial concerns | State contended spontaneous non‑law‑enforcement disclosures (e.g., to friend) were nontestimonial | Mason implied hearsay/testimonial concerns | Court found first disclosure to friend nontestimonial; Confrontation Clause not violated |
| Cumulative error | State argued no reversible error in any admission; no cumulative prejudice | Mason argued cumulative trial errors deprived him of a fair trial | Court held no reversible individual errors and therefore no cumulative-error basis for reversal |
Key Cases Cited
- Nunnery v. State, 126 So. 3d 105 (Miss. Ct. App. 2013) (standard and factors for tender‑years analysis)
- Hobgood v. State, 926 So. 2d 847 (Miss. 2006) (hearsay and appellate standard for admission of evidence)
- Clark v. State, 891 So. 2d 136 (Miss. 2004) (abuse‑of‑discretion review for evidentiary rulings)
- Elkins v. State, 918 So. 2d 828 (Miss. Ct. App. 2005) (rebuttable presumption for children under twelve and case‑by‑case analysis for older children)
- Veasley v. State, 735 So. 2d 432 (Miss. 1999) (presumption that child under twelve is of tender years)
- Bishop v. State, 982 So. 2d 371 (Miss. 2008) (factors and on‑the‑record findings for tender‑years admissibility)
- Tubbs v. State, 185 So. 3d 363 (Miss. 2016) (trial court need not use specific phrasing if record contains sufficient findings on reliability)
- Smith v. State, 925 So. 2d 825 (Miss. 2006) (prior consistent statements and credibility/rehabilitation principles)
- Penny v. State, 960 So. 2d 533 (Miss. Ct. App. 2006) (admission of child statements responding to open‑ended questions is within trial court discretion)
- Genry v. State, 735 So. 2d 186 (Miss. 1999) (framework for assessing cumulative error)
- Miller v. State, 144 So. 3d 199 (Miss. Ct. App. 2014) (appellate waiver where appellant fails to develop arguments)