Steven Lee Boggs v. State of Mississippi
2016 Miss. LEXIS 147
Miss.2016Background
- Steven Lee Boggs was charged with gratification of lust for sexual misconduct against K.E., a minor cousin; two other minors, S.S. and D.N., testified for the State about similar misconduct though only K.E.’s charge proceeded to trial.
- Incidents occurred between summer 2009 and summer 2010; S.S.’s separate charge was later dismissed as time-barred and charges arising from D.N.’s allegations were nolle prosequi before the instant indictment.
- The State gave pretrial notice it would use testimony from S.S. and D.N. as evidence of other acts under Mississippi Rule of Evidence 404(b) to show motive, plan/scheme, and absence of mistake; the trial court admitted the evidence and later gave a Rule 404(b) limiting instruction.
- K.E. initially gave a statement denying misconduct but later recanted that denial at trial; Boggs testified and denied the allegations.
- Boggs was convicted; he appealed, arguing (1) improper admission of other-acts evidence (S.S., D.N.), (2) an inadequate/totally inclusive limiting instruction under Rule 404(b), (3) erroneous admission of hearsay under the tender-years exception (Rule 803(25)), and (4) cumulative error.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Boggs's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of S.S. and D.N. testimony under Rule 404(b) | Testimony shows common plan/scheme and motive — striking similarities with charged conduct make evidence admissible for noncharacter purposes | Testimony was impermissible propensity/character evidence and unduly prejudicial under Rule 403 | Admissible: Court finds strong similarity (relationship, ages, methods, secrecy) shows common plan and motive; trial court did not abuse discretion under Rules 404(b) and 403 |
| Limiting instruction on 404(b) evidence | Proposed instruction tracked Rule 404 language and was proper; instruction was given before D.N. and at close | Instruction was overbroad; should have been tailored to only the specific purposes the State actually relied on | Not reversible error: instruction acceptable (though preferable to tailor), fairly announced the law and no substantial right affected |
| Admission of testimony under tender-years hearsay exception (Rule 803(25)) | Testimony of S.S.’s mother and forensic interviewer admissible; testimony used to relate disclosures and support 404(b) evidence | Trial court erred admitting their testimony under Rule 803(25) | Rejected: argument procedurally unsupported and essentially rehashes prior-acts objection; State had articulated noncharacter purpose so admission not erroneous |
| Cumulative-error claim | N/A | Alleged multiple evidentiary errors collectively deprived him of a fair trial | Denied: where no individual reversible errors exist, there is no cumulative reversible error |
Key Cases Cited
- Mitchell v. State, 539 So.2d 1366 (Miss. 1989) (previous rule treating other-acts sexual-misconduct evidence as per se inadmissible)
- Derouen v. State, 994 So.2d 748 (Miss. 2008) (overruled Mitchell; other-acts sexual-misconduct evidence may be admissible under Rule 404(b) if filtered through Rule 403 and accompanied by limiting instruction)
- Gore v. State, 37 So.3d 1178 (Miss. 2010) (admitted similar prior sexual-misconduct testimony as proof of motive and common plan; limiting instruction approved)
- Green v. State, 89 So.3d 543 (Miss. 2012) (confirmed admissibility where overwhelming similarities support inference of common plan/scheme)
- Leedom v. State, 796 So.2d 1010 (Miss. 2001) (Rule 404(b) allows admission of other acts occurring before or after charged offense; prefer limiting instruction when evidence introduced)
- Cole v. State, 126 So.3d 880 (Miss. 2013) (admonishes prosecutors and trial courts to specify the actual noncharacter purpose for admitting prior-bad-acts evidence and to tailor limiting instructions accordingly)