I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 0 7 - KA- 0 1 0 0 5 - S CT S HANN ON TROY DEROUEN a / k / a TROY DEROUEN
v. STATE OFM

I SS I SS I PPI
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 5/ 2/ 2007 TRI AL J UDG E: HON . ROBER T P . KREBS COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: J ACKSON COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT AT T OR NE YS F OR AP P E L L ANT : BR E NDA J AC KS ON P AT T E RS ON GLE NN S. S W ARTZ F AGER ATTO RN EY FO R A PP ELLEE: OFFI CE O F THE ATTO RN EY G ENER AL, BY : L ADONN A C . HOL L AND D IS T R IC T A T T O R N E Y : A N T H O N Y N . L A W R E N C E , III NAT UR E OF T HE CA S E : CR I M I NAL - F E L ONY D I SPO SI T I O N : A FFIRM E D - 11/ 20/ 2008 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D:
EN BA NC . GR AVES, J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: P ART ONE ¶ 1 . S h a n n o n T r o y De r o u e n wa s c o n v i c t e d i n th e Ci r c u i t Co u r t o f J a c k s o n Co u n ty o f two cou nt s of

f on dl i ng . D e r ou e n was s e nt e nc e d t o tw o, f i f t e e n- ye a rs e nt e nc e s t o b e s er ved
co n cu rren tl y in the cu stod y o f th e M issi ssipp i D ep artm en t o f C o rrecti o n s, w ith eigh t yea rs to se rv e an d the rem a in d e r o n p o st-re lea se su p e rv isio n . S u b se q u e n tly , D e ro u e n fil e d th is
a p p e a l. B e c a u se w e fin d th a t th e iss u e s ra ise d b y D e ro u e n are w ith o u t m e rit, w e aff irm h is convi ct i on.

### 2 F ACT S AND P ROCE DURAL HI S TORY ¶2. J . D . , then ei ght year s ol d, of t en vi s i t ed i n the hom e of her s t ep- uncl e, Shannon T r oy D er ouen, and hi s f

ami l y. D ur i ng one of

thes e vi s i t s , J . D . s pent the ni ghtand w as l yi ng on the couc h i n the l i vi ng r oom w at chi ng t el evi s i on a f t ere veryone had gone t o bed. D er ouen
w enti nt o the l i vi ng r oom , goton the couc h w i th J
. D . , then pl ace d hi s hand on and rubbe d J .D .’s v a g in a l a re a . ¶3. Sever al m onths l at er , J . D . w as again spend i ng the ni ght at D er ouen’ s hous e on the
co u ch i n th e li v ing roo m . D ero u en ag ain w en t i n to the li v ing roo m an d g o t un d er the co v ers o n th e c o u c h w ith J.D . D e ro u e n to o k J.D .’s h a n d a n d p la c e d it o n h is p e n is a n d ru b b e d it. D ero u en ’s ne p h ew , B ron so n D ero u en , w alke d i n an d w itn esse d D ero u en un d e r th e co v ers on the couc h w i th J
. D . J . D . then l ef tthe couc h and w entto t he bathr oom w her e B r ons on hear d he rc ryi ng. W hen as ked w hatw as w r ong, J . D . r es ponded thats he had as t om ach a che. ¶4 . Som e mont hs l at e rd ur i ng a p r e s e nt a t i on o n i napp r op r i a t e t ou c hi ng , J . D . t ol d her f our th- gr ade t eac her , A nn L adni er , w hathad happe ned as s etoutabove. L adn i err ef err ed J . D . t o t he sc hool counse l or , w ho cont act ed the M i s s i s s i ppi D epartm entof H um an Servi ces ( M D H S)
. A l t on H ebr on, a soci al w orkerw i th M D H S, w entt o the s chool and i nt ervi ew ed J . D . Subs equent l y, Sar ah B i s hop Car other s , a f or ens i c i nt ervi ew erw i th Sout h M i s s i s s i ppi C hi l d A dvocac y C ent er , i nt ervi ew ed J. D . J . D . re l at ed the sa m e ver s i on of the eve nt s t o her t eac her , the s chool c ouns el or , H ebr on, a nd C ar other s . T her eaf t er , D er ouen w as i ndi ct ed on tw o count s of

t ouchi ng a c hi l d f

orl us t f ul purpos es by a per s on i n a pos i t i on of trus t . H e w as convi ct ed and s ent ence d t o serve tw o concurr entfi f t een- yearsent ence s i n t he cus t ody of the M iss iss ip p i D e p a rtm e n t o f C o rre c tio n s, w ith e ig h t y e a rs to se rv e a n d th e re m a in d e r o n p o st-

### 3

re lea se su p e rv isio n . T h e re a fte r, D e ro u e n filed th is a p p ea l, asse rt ing th a t th e trial c o u rt sh o u ld nothave a dm i t t ed hea r s ay t es t i m ony underthe t ender
- year s doctr i ne and thatthe ver di ctw as agai ns tthe overw hel m i ng w ei ghtand s uf f i ci ency of

t he evi dence
. Fur ther , the St at e f i l ed a
cr os s - appea l as ki ng thi s C our tt o overrul e Mitch e ll v. S ta te , 5 3 9 S o . 2 d 1 3 6 6 (M iss. 1 9 8 9 ). A N A L Y S IS I . T he t r i alco ur t s houl d not have adm i t t e d t he hea r s ay t e s t i m ony of t he vi c t i m by t he s oc i alwork e r and t he f or e ns i c i nt e r vi e wer unde r t he t e nde r - ye ar s e xc e pt i on. ¶5. D er ouen as s ert s thatthe t es t i m ony of H ebron and C ar other s s houl d nothave been admi t t ed pr i ort o a fac tual det erm i nat i on that( 1) the al l eged vi ct i m w as a chi l d of t ender y ea rs an d (2) th at th e h ea rsay st atem en ts o f th e all eg ed victi m pro v ided sub stan ti al in d icia of r el i abi l i ty. M or eover , D er ouen as s ert s thatthe tr i al courtf ai l ed t o quest i on J. D . , the s oci al
w orker , and t he f

or ens i c i nt ervi ew erand af t erw ar d m ake ( 1) a f

i ndi ng on the r ecor d thatthe chi l d w as of

t enderyear s and ( 2) a f

i ndi ng of s ubs t ant i al i ndi ci a of re l i abi l i ty of

the t es t i m ony of the s oc i a l wor ke ra ndthe f or e ns i c i nt e rvi e w e r . The t e nd e r - ye a r s e xc e pt i on i s governed by R ule 803(25 ) of

the M i ssi ssi pp i R ules of E vidence (M
. R . E . ), w hich r eads: A s t at ementm ade by a chi l d of t enderyears d escr i bi ng any ac tof s exual co n tact pe rform ed w ith o r on th e c h il d b y an o ther is ad m issi b le i n ev iden ce if: ( a) the courtf

i nds , i n a hea r i ng conduct ed out s i de the pr es entof the j ury, that the t i m e, cont ent, and ci r cumst ance s of the s t at ementpr ovi de s ubs t ant i al i nd i ci a of r el i abil i ty; and (b) the ch i l d either ( 1) t esti fi es atthe p roceedings; o r (2 ) is u n a v a ilab le a s a w itn e ss : pr o v id e d , th a t w h e n the c h ild is u n a v a ilab le as a w i tnes s , s uch s t at ementm ay be a dm i t t ed onl y i f ther e i s corr obor at i ve e v id e n c e o f th e a c t. M .R .E . 8 0 3 (2 5 ). ¶6. T hi s C our thas hel d:

### 4 T oday w e hol d thatther e i s a r ebutt abl e pr es um pt i on t hata chi l d under th e a g e o f tw e lv e is o f te n d e r y e a rs. . . . W h e re a n a lleg e d se x u a l ab u se v ictim i s tw el ve orol der , ther e i s no s uch pr es um pt i on a nd the tr i al courtm us tm ake a c a se -b y -c a se d e ter m in a tio n a s to w h e th e r th e v ictim is o f te n d e r y e a rs. T h is det erm i nat i on s houl d be m ade on the r ecor d and bas ed on a f actual f i ndi ng as t o the vi ct i m ’ s m ent al and emot i onal a ge. I f the courtf

i nds thatthe dec l ar ant is of tend er y ea rs, then itm u st st il l ru le on the R u le 8 0 3 (25 )(a) an d (b) fac tors b e fo re a d m ittin g th e te s tim o n y . V e a sle y v. Sta te , 7 3 5 S o . 2 d 4 3 2 , 4 3 6 -3 7 (M is s . 1 9 9 9 ). ¶7. T he vi ct i m h ere, J. D . , w as underthe age of tw el ve. T her ef

or e, a pr es um pt i on of t enderyear s exi s t ed, and the tr i al courtdi d nothave t o m ake s uch a de t erm i nat i on. M o reove r, w hil e D erouen did r ai se an obj ect i on t o the app l i cat i on of the tender- ye ars excep t i on to the t es t i m ony of the t eac herA nn L adni er , D er ouen f ai l ed t o r ai s e any s uch
o b jecti o n as to eith er H eb ron o r C aro thers. T h is C o u rth as c o n sist en tl y h eld th at th e fa il u re to m a k e a c o n te m p o ra n e o u s o b je c tio n c o n s titu te s w a iv e r o f a n is s u e o n a p p e a l. See W al ker
v. S ta te , 671 So . 2 d 58 1, 5 87 ( M i s s . 1995)
. T her ef or e, thi s i s s ue i s pr ocedur al l y barr ed. Fur ther , the tr i al courtdi d conducta hea r i ng out s i de the pr es ence of the j ury and made a f i ndi ng of s ub s t a nt i a l i nd i c i a of

r e l i a bi l i ty a s t o La dn i e r . J . D . ’ s s t a t e ment s t o Hebr on a nd C a ro th e rs w e re c o n sis ten t w ith h e r s tate m e n ts to L a d n ier . F o r th e se re a so n s, w e fin d th a t th is iss u e is w ith o u t m e rit. I I . T he j ur y v e r di c t was ag ai ns t t he ov e r whel m i ng wei ght and s uf f i c i e nc y o f

t he evi dence. ¶8. T h is C ou rthas hel d that the st and ard of r eview f

or the d en ial o f a m o ti o n for a j udgm entnotw i ths t andi ng the ver dictis det erm i ned by the s uf f i ci ency of

the evi dence
. W ith e rs v. Sta te , 907 S o. 2 d 342, 350- 51 ( M i s s . 2005)
. “Thi s C our tm us tr evi ew the tr i al
court ’ s f i ndi ng r egar di ng s uf

f i ci ency of

t he evi dence att he t i m e the mot i on f orJN O V w as

### 5

overrul ed. ” I

d. ( quot i ng E a k e s v . S ta te , 665 So. 2d 852, 872 ( M i s s . 1995) )
. T he evi dence i s vi ew ed i n the l i gh tm ostf avor abl e t o the St at e and a l l cr edi bl e evi dence s uppor t i ng the
c o n v ic tio n is ta k e n a s tru e . I d. at351. “O nl y w her e the evi dence , as t o atl eas tone of the el ement s of the cr i m e char ged, i s s uch thata r eas onabl e and f ai rm i nded j ury coul d onl y f i nd the ac cus ed notgui l ty, w i l l thi s C our tr ever s e. ” I d. ¶9. D er ouen asser t s t hat i tw as m erel y J . D . ’ s w or d agai ns thi s and thatther e w as no p h y sical or ey ew itn ess e v iden ce of fon d li n g . T h is C o u rtha s fou n d th at “the test im o n y o f a
s i ngl e uncorr obor at ed w i tnes s i s suf f i ci entt o sus t ai n a convi ct i on . . . even though ther e may be m or e than one per s on t es t i f yi ng t o t he contr ary. . . . ” W ill ia m s v . Sta te , 512 So. 2d 666, 670 ( M i s s . 1987) ( ci t at i ons om i t t ed)
. Fur ther , t hi s C our thas hel d t hat : “[ T ] he uns uppor t ed
w or d of the vi ct i m of

a se x cr i m e i s s uf

f i ci entt o s uppor ta gui l ty ver di ctw her e thatt es t i m ony i s notdi s cr edi t ed orc ontr adi ct ed by othercr edi bl e evi dence
. . . . ” T o rr e y v. Sta te , 891 S o. 2d 188, 192 ( M i s s . 2004) ( quot i ng Co llie r v . Sta te , 7 1 1 S o . 2 d 4 5 8 , 4 6 2 (M is s . 1 9 9 8 ))
. ¶10. J. D . ’s t est i m ony w as corr obor at ed by her pr i or s t at ement s t o L adni er , H ebr on, and C a ro th e rs . See Sm ith v. S ta te , 925 So. 2d 825, 831-32 ( M i s s . 2006)
. B r ons on D er ouen
w i tnes s ed D er ouen underthe cove r s on the couc h w i th J
. D . and then w i tnes s ed J
. D . i n the bathr oom cryi ng i m m edi at el y ther eaf t er . M or eover , ther e i s typi cal l y no phys i cal evi dence of f on dli ng. W e f

i nd thatthe evi dence i s nots uch thata r eas onabl e j ury coul d onl y f i nd D e ro u e n n o t g u ilty . T h e re fo re , this iss u e is w ith o u t m e rit. ¶11. A m ot i on f

or a new tr i al chal l enges the w ei ght of the evi dence and i s r evi ew ed by an
a b u s e -o f- d is c re tio n s ta n d a rd
. Sm ith , 925 So. 2d at832. “I n r evi ew i ng a deni al of a mot i on f ora ne w tr i al ba s ed on a n obj ect i on t o the w ei ghtof the evi dence , thi s C our tw i l l di s turb a

### 6

ver di ctonl y ‘w hen i ti s so contr ary t o t he overw hel m i ng w ei ghtof the evi dence thatt o al l ow i tt o s t and w oul d s anct i on a n unc ons ci onabl e i nj us t i ce. ’ ” I d. ( quot i ng B u sh v. Sta te , 895 So. 2 d 8 3 6 , 8 4 4 (M iss. 2 0 0 5 )). ¶12. I n thi s cas e, the t es t i m ony of J . D . , B r ons on D er ouen, L adni er , C ar other s , H ebr on, and the otherw i tnes s es provi ded a bas i s fort he j ury’ s det erm i nat i on of gui l t . A ccor di ngl y, the
v e rd ict w a s n o t co n tra ry to th e o v e rw h e lm in g w e ig h t o f th e e v id e n c e . T h e re fo re , this
a rg u m e n t is w ith o u t m e rit. CO NC L US I ON ¶13. Fort he reas on s st at ed herei n, w e aff i rm D er ouen’ s j udgm entof convi ct i on and
s ent ence . P A R T T WO THE S TA TE ’ S CROS S - AP P EA L CAR LS ON , J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶14. O n cr os s - appea l , the St at e r eques t s thatw e overrul e Mitch e ll v. S ta te , 539 So. 2d 1366 ( M i s s . 1989)
. The tr i al j udge i n t oday’ s cas e, i n r el i ance upon Mitch e ll , re f us ed t o al l ow the St at e t o cal l tw o w i tnes s es d uri ng the t r i al t o t es t i f y t o pr i ori nci dent s of

D er ouen’ s s exual abus e agai ns totherc hi l dr en. Bel i evi ng thati n L a m b e rt v. Sta te , 7 24 S o. 2 d 39 2, 3 94 (M i ss. 19 98 ), this C ou rtadeq uatel y inf orm ed the tri al ben ch an d b ar “that there cou l d b e a case
w h ere sim il ar e v iden ce co u ld b e ad m issi b le, ” Ju sti ce G rav es o p ines in h is dissen t th at th ere
w as no need t o overrul e Mitch e ll . H ow ever , i ti s the opi ni on of a maj or i ty of

thi s C our tthat
now i s the t i m e ( r atherthan l at er ) t o a ddr es s thi s i s s ue di r ect l y i n or dert o gi ve gui dance t o the tr i al bench and bari n c r i m i nal c as es s i m i l art o the one bef or e us t oday. T hi s f

acti s obvi ous

### At the tim e of thi s Cour t’ s de ci si on in Mitch ell, Rul e 803 di d not c ontain s ec ti on 1 

### (25) , the t ende r- years exc eption; there fore, thi s Cour t he ld t hat thetender -ye ar s e xcepti on whic h exi st ed in ca selaw had be en a brogate d via

thejudi ci al ly enac te d Mis si ss ippiRule s of E vid ence. Mitch ell, 53 9 S o. 2 d at 1 36 9. 7 beca us e the r ecor d r evea l s i n t oday’ s cas e thatthe tr i al j udge dut i f ul l y f ol l ow ed Mitch e ll

and L am bert i n di s al l ow i ng the St at e’ s e vi dence c oncerni ng D er ouen’ s purpor t ed s exual abuse of otherchi l dr en. ¶15. I n Mitch e ll , thi s C our tr ever s ed M i t chel l ’ s convi ct i on and s ent ence f orf ondl i ng a f

i veyear - ol d chi l d, bas ed on a pe r cei ved vi ol at i on of our then- new l y- enac t ed M i s s i s s i ppi R ul es o f E v id e n c e . D u rin g M itch e ll’s tria l, tw o w itn e ss e s fo r th e S tate w e re p e rm itt e d to tes tify to
o u t- o f-co u rtstat em en ts pu rpo rt ed ly m ad e b y the m ino r v ict im
. T h is C o u rtrev erse d M it ch ell ’s
c o n v ictio n a n d se n ten c e a n d re m a n d e d th e c a se “ to th e tr ia l c o u rt fo r c o n sid e ra tio n o f th is te s tim o n y u n d e r M .R .E . 8 0 3 e x c e p tio n s .” 1 ¶16. H ow ever , of

s i gni f i canti m por ti n Mitch e ll w a s P re sid in g J u stic e H a w k in s’s d iss e n t. Pr es i di ng J us t i ce H aw ki ns poi gnant l y r evea l ed a f l aw i n the maj or i ty’ s anal ys i s by s t at i ng: N e ith e r h a s th e m a

jo ri ty m a d e a n e x a m in a tio n o f c a s e s n a tio n w id e a s to w hetherornoti n the pr os ecut i on of s ex cas es of thi s natur e evi dence of s i m i l ar cr i m es comm i t t ed upon other s i s admi s s i bl e. T hat i s al s o unf or tunat e. T he o v e rw h e lm in g w e ig h t o f a u th o rity is th a t in the u n u su a l co n tex t o f c a se s o f th is natur e s uch evi dence i s admi s s i bl e. T he author i t i es ar e exha us t i vel y annot at ed in 7 7 A .L .R .2 d 8 4 1 -9 0 8 ( 1 9 5 8 a n d S u p p . 1 9 8 6 ); s e e , L in g e rfe lt v. S ta te , 147 G a . A p p . 3 7 1 , 2 4 9 S .E .2 d 1 0 0 (1 9 7 8 ); G re y v. S ta te , 273 Ind. 439, 404 N . E . 2d 1 3 4 8 (1 9 8 0 ); McK

in n e y v. S ta te , 5 0 5 S .W .2 d 5 3 6 (T e x . C rim . 1 9 7 4 ); P e o p le v. Jacks on , 1 1 0 C a l. A p p . 3 d 5 6 0 , 1 6 7 C a l. R p tr. 9 1 5 (1 st D ist. 1 9 8 0 ); P e o p le v. Cre sp in , 6 3 1 P . 2 d 1 1 4 4 (C o lo . A p p . 1 9 8 0 ); McG ahee v. Mas s ey , 667 F. 2d 1 3 5 7 (1 1 th C ir. 1 9 8 2 ); P eople v. D iG iacom o 71 I l l
. A pp. 3d 56, 27 I l l
. D ec. 2 3 2 , 3 8 8 N .E .2 d 1 2 8 1 (1 9 7 9 ); A u stin v. Sta te , 262 I nd. 529, 319 N . E . 2d 130, cert . den. 421 U . S. 1012, 44 L . E d. 2d 680, 95 S. C t . 2417, notf ol l ow i ng Meeks v. S ta te , 2 4 9 I n d . 6 5 9 , 2 3 4 N .E .2 d 6 2 9 (1 9 6 8 ); P o rte r v . S ta te , 272 I nd. 267, 3 9 7 N .E .2 d 2 6 9 (1 9 7 9 ); P eop le v. Clark , 62 M i ch. A pp. 740, 233 N . W . 2d 856

### 8

(1 9 7 5 ); S tate v. G a tl

in , 2 9 5 N .W .2 d 5 3 8 (M in n . 1 9 8 0 ); State v. R einke , 343 N .W .2 d 6 6 0 (M in n . 1 9 8 4 ); Ho u g h v. Sta te , 70 W i s . 2d 807, 235 N . W . 2d 534 (1 9 7 5 ); Ho w to n v. S ta te , 3 9 1 S o . 2 d 1 4 7 (A la. A p p . 1 9 8 0 ); Peo ple v. G r e e ne , 3 4 C a l. A p p . 3 d 6 2 2 , 1 1 0 C a l. R p tr. 1 6 0 (1 st D ist. 1 9 7 3 ); State v. Evans , 212 N e b . 4 7 6 , 3 2 3 N .W .2 d 1 0 6 (1 9 8 2 ); S ta te v . B u rc h fie ld , 664 S. W . 2d 284 ( T enn. 1 9 8 4 ); P eople v. H

am m er , 98 M ich. A p p . 4 7 1 , 2 9 6 N . W . 2 d 2 8 3 (19 8 0 ); S ta te v. Sutton , 4 N .C . A p p . 6 6 4 , 1 6 7 S .E .2 d 4 9 9 (1 9 6 9 ); B iss e ll v. S ta te , 157 G a. A p p . 7 1 1 , 2 7 8 S .E .2 d 4 1 5 (1 9 8 1 ); E ste s v . Sta te , 244 I nd. 691, 195 N . E . 2d 471 (1 9 6 4 ); K

e rlin v. S ta te , 2 5 5 Ind
. 42 0 , 2 6 5 N . E . 2 d 2 2 (19 7 0 ); G ilm a n v. Sta te , 2 5 8 In d . 5 5 6 , 2 8 2 N .E .2 d 8 1 6 (1 9 7 2 ); P iep e r v . Sta te , 262 I nd. 580, 321 N . E . 2d 1 9 6 (1 9 7 5 ); B o w e n v. S ta te , 2 6 3 In d . 5 5 8 , 3 3 4 N .E .2 d 6 9 1 (1 9 7 5 ); State v. Car i gnan , 2 7 2 N .W .2 d 7 4 8 ( M in n . 1 9 7 8 ); S ta te v . G riffin , 497 S. W . 2d 133 (M o . 1 9 7 3 ); Sta te v. Young , 6 6 1 S . W . 2 d 6 3 7 (M o . 1 9 8 4 ) (cit ing an n o tat ion ); W ille tt v. S ta te , 9 4 N e v . 6 2 0 , 5 8 4 P .2 d 6 8 4 (1 9 7 8 ); P eople v. Chandley , 89 A p p . D iv . 2 d 7 4 0 , 4 5 3 N .Y .S .2 d 9 1 9 (1 9 8 2 ); State v. G ar dner , 59 O hi o St . 2d 1 4 , 1 3 O h io O p s. 3 d 8 , 3 9 1 N .E .2 d 3 3 7 (1 9 7 9 ); Co m m o n w e a lth v. B o o th , 291 P a . S u p e r. 2 7 8 , 4 3 5 A .2 d 1 2 2 0 (1 9 8 1 ); J o h n sto n v. S ta te , 418 S. W . 2d 522 (T e x . C rim . 1 9 6 7 ); O 'N e a l v. S ta te , 4 2 1 S . W . 2 d 3 9 1 (T ex . C ri m . 1 9 6 7 ); McD o n a ld

v. S ta te , 5 1 3 S .W .2 d 4 4 (T e x . C rim . 1 9 7 4 ); State v. Y ates , 220 K an. 6 3 5 , 5 5 6 P .2 d 1 7 6 (1 9 7 6 ). Mitch e ll , 5 3 9 S o . 2 d at 13 7 4 -75 (H aw k ins, P.J. , d issen ti n g ). ¶17. Sever al year s l at er , thi s C ou rtw as aga i n con fr ont ed w i th thi s i s s ue. I n L am ber t v. S ta te , 72 4 S o . 2 d 3 9 2 (M iss. 1 9 9 8 ), this C o u rtg ran ted th e S tat e’s p eti ti o n for w ri t of ce rt iorari af t erthe C our tof

A ppeal s , i n r el i ance on Mitch e ll , r ever s ed Lam bert ’s convi ct i on and
se n ten c e d u e to the trial c o u rt’s “ a d m iss io n o f e v id e n c e o f im p ro p e r c o n d u c t w ith y o u n g g irls bes i des thatf

orw hi ch he w as on tr i al
. ” I d. a t 39 3 . B asica ll y , the q u esti o n b efo re this C o u rt i n L am bert

w as as f ol l ow s : T rue orFal s e – A ny t i m e evi dence of a s exual of

f ens e otherthan th e o n e c h a rg e d , w h ich in v o lv e s a v ictim o th e r th a n th e v ictim o f th e c h a rg e d o ff e n se , is admi t t ed, then thata dm i s s i on of e vi dence of

the of f ens e i s pe rs e r ever s i bl e, e ven i f the evi dence a ti s s ue comes underone of the exc ept i ons l i s t ed underM i s s i s s i ppi R ul e of E vi dence

### In La mb ert, the Cour t a dmitt edly did s tatethat “ [w] hil e weagreethat t here cou ld 2 

### be a ca sewhere s imil ar

evi denc e cou ld

be a dmi ss ibl e, theCourt of Appe al s wa s c orrec t in reve rs ing Lambert ’s convi ction. ” Id. at 394 (e mpha si s a dded)
. 9 4 0 4 (b ). I

d. at394. T hi s C our ti n L am bert a n s w e re d “ T ru e .” I

d. T h re e m e m b e rs o f th is 2 C our tt ook i s s ue w i th the maj or i ty i n L am bert , s t at i ng w i th a poi gn ancy si m i l art o thatof P residing Ju sti ce H aw k ins a lm o st t en y ea rs ea rl ier: T he C our tof

A ppeal s has corr ect l y i nt erpr et ed and r el i ed on thi s C our t ' s pr i or h o ld in g in Mitch e ll v. S ta te , 5 3 9 S o . 2 d 1 3 6 6 (M iss. 1 9 8 9 ). Mitch e ll , h o w ev er, i s f l aw ed l aw . I tai ds onl y thos e w ho l eas tdes erve i t s benef i t s : thos e w ho re p e a ted ly co m m it se x u a lly v io len t ac ts a n d p re d a to ry p e d o p h iles
. I w o u ld overrul e Mitch e ll

sinc e itarb itraril y instructs th at ad m issi o n o f ev iden ce o f a s exual of

f ens e aga i nsto ne ot herthan the vi ct i m i s pers e r ever s i bl e. A s to n is h in g ly , Mitch e ll cal l s forr ever s al even w hen the evi dence comes unde r o n e o f th e e x c e p tio n s o f M .R .E . 4 0 4 (b ). S in c e th e m a jo rity ' s h o ld in g d o e s littl e to co rrect th e re aso n ing o f Mitch e ll , I m u st re sp e c tfu lly d iss e n t. Itis th e g en era l ru le th at prior b ad ac ts are ina d m issi b le t o p rov e c h ara cter. H o w e v e r, su c h a c ts m a y b e a d m iss ib le t o s h o w m o tiv e , o p p o rtu n ity , inte n t, p re p a rati o n , p lan, kn o w ledg e, i d en ti ty o r ab sen ce o f m ist ak e o r ac cide n t. M . R . E . 404(b)
. I n contr as tt o thi s C our t ' s hol di ng i n Mitch e ll , the m a jo rity r ecogni zes t her e coul d be a ca s e w her e s i m i l arevi dence w oul d be admi s s i bl e. H ow ever , the maj or i ty f i nds thatthe evi dence of f er ed her e, the t est i m ony of g irls o th e r th a n th e v ictim , is so p re ju d icia l th a t it s in tro d u c tio n w a s re v e rsib le e rr o r. Mitch e ll

h as p rod u ce d , in the w o rds o f A lexa n d er P o p e, " . . . a w o rk w her e nothi ng' s j us torf i t , one gl ar i ng chaos and w i l d heap of w i t . " A ccor di ng t o Mitch e ll l og i c, as appli ed in this case, i f evi den ce i s e f f e c t i ve , itm ustbe pr ej ud i ci al s i nce i tt ends t o es t abl i s h the truth, i tm us tbe s tr i cken. H ow ri dicul ou s. T he tr i al j udge bal ance d the pr obat i ve val ue of the t es t i m ony w i th i t s pr ej udi ce on the record and found the ev i den ce sho uld be a l l ow ed u nd er M . R . E . 40 3. "A trial ju d g e e n

jo y s a g re a t d e a l o f d isc re tio n a s to th e re lev a n c y a n d a d m iss ib ili ty of evi dence
. U nl es s the j udge abus es hi s di s cr et i on s o as t o be pr ej udi ci al t o the a c c u s e d , th e C o u rtw ill n o t r e v e rs e th is ru lin g ." S tev e n s v . Sta te , 717 So. 2d 311, 313 (M i s s . 1998) ( ci t i ng Fish e r v . S ta te , 690 So. 2d 268, 274 ( M i s s . 1996) )
. I do notf i nd the tr i al j udge abus ed hi s di s cr et i on.

### 10

Sex cr i m es agai ns tchi l dr en ar e f ur t i ve, s ecr etevent s us ual l y l acki ng evi dence o th e r th a n th e c o n flictin g tes tim o n y o f th e d e fe n d a n t an d th e v ictim . T h e o n ly vi abl e pr oof

of m ot i ve, i nt ent , pl an, know l edge, i dent i ty or abs ence of mi s t ake oracc i dentm ay be the patt ern of abus e s uf

f er ed by other s at t he hands of the def endant
. T he nee d f

orthi s type of

evi dence has i nf

l uence d the l aw i n s ever al st at es. T he Loui s i ana Supr eme C our t , w hen f ace d w i th the t es t i m ony of var i ous n e ig h b o rs a n d frie n d s th a t th e d e fe n d a n t h a d se x u a lly a s s a u lte d th e m , h e ld in a s i m i l arcas e: Fi nal l y, def

endantcont ends thatany pr obat i ve val ue w oul d be outw ei ghed by pr ej udi ce, es peci al l y w hen one c ons i der s that so m e o f th e a lleg e d e v e n ts in q u e s tio n o c c u rre d o v e r tw e n ty year s pr i ort o the i ns t antc har ges be i ng br ought
. T he s t at e f ocus es in ste a d o n th e n e c e ss ity o f th e o th e r c rim e s e v id e n c e to c o rr o b o r a t e th e t e s t i mo n y o f th e v e ry y o u n g v i c t i m. If a d m itt e d , this e v id e n c e w ill b e re lev a n t to sh o w , co n tra ry to th e d e fe n d a n t' s a ttem p ted e x c u lp a to ry sta tem e n t, th a t th e fa c ts gi vi ng r i s e t o the i ns t antchar ges w er e nei theruni nt ended nor ac cide n tal
. D efe n d an t' s m o ti v e w o u ld also b e d isclo se d : a s eemi ngl y uncontr ol l abl e des i r e t o part ake i n pedophi l i c s exual act i vi t i es w i th young and deve l opi ng f emal e j uveni l es . Fi nal l y, defend ant' s m eans o f acco m pli shi ng these acti vit i es on p ast occa s i ons bears ubs t ant i al r es embl ance t o e ach othera nd w i th the pr es entof

f ens e. S tate v. D ri

gg ers , 554 So. 2d 720, 726 ( L a. C t . A pp. 198 9). T he Loui s i ana Supr eme C our tal s o r ece nt l y hel d ther e w as no abus e of di s cr et i on i n al l ow i ng t es t i m ony r egar di ng a prur i entst at em entm ade t o an ei ghtyearol d gi r l w ho w as n o t th e v ic tim o f th e a lle g e d a b u s e a n d w a s n o t r e la te d to th e d e fe n d a n t. S ta te v. Mil ler , 7 1 8 S o . 2 d 9 6 0 (L a. 19 9 8 ). I n Ex par te R egis ter , 6 8 0 S o . 2 d 2 2 5 (A la. 1 9 9 4 ), the A laba m a S u p rem e C o u rt f o u n d n o a b u s e o f

d i s c r e t i o n b y th e tr i a l c o u r ti n a l l o w i n g th e d e f e n d a n t 's natur al daught ert o t es t i f y t o the def

endant ' s pr evi ous i m pr operconductw hen def endantw as char ged w i th abus e of his st ep-daught er . I n Sh a p iro v. S ta te , 696 So. 2d 1321 ( Fl a. D i s t . Ct . A pp. 1997) , the Fl or i da courtf ound no abus e of dis cret i on w hen a form er pat i ent t est if i ed to i m pr opercond uct by a p sycho l og i st and the ps ychol ogi s tw as char ged w i th s exual m i s conductagai ns tanother p a tien t.

### 11

I f i nd the r eas oni ng of

thi s C our ti n Mitch e ll

u nd erm i nes the b al ancing p rocess cont empl at ed by M
. R . E . 403 and conf l i ct s w i th M
. R . E . 404( b) by i m pos i ng a v irtu a l b a n o n e v id e n c e o th e r th a n th a t o f th e r e latio n sh ip b e tw e e n th e v ictim and the ac cus ed. T he courtbe l ow di d nota bus e i t s di s cr et i on w hen i tf ound the p ro b a tiv e v a lu e o f th e e v id e n c e o u tw e ig h e d th e p re ju d icia l ef

fe c t u n d e r R u le 403. Forthes e r eas ons , I w oul d overrul e thi s C our t ' s deci s i on i n Mitch e ll , r ever s e the dec i s i on of

the C our tof

A ppeal s , and af

f i rm the dec i s i on of

the W a lth a ll C o u n ty C irc u it C o u rt. L am bert , 7 2 4 S o . 2 d at 39 5 -96 (M il ls, J. , d issen ti n g , joine d b y R o b erts an d S m ith , JJ.)
. ¶1 8. I n othe rwor ds , the p r a c t i c a l e f f e c to f thi s Court ’ s deci s i on i n L am bert w a s th a t,
n o tw ith sta n d in g th e e x iste n c e o f M iss iss ip p i R u le o f E v id e n c e 4 0 4 (b ) a n d M iss iss ip p i R u le of E vi dence 403, thi s Courtw i l l m ake a n exce pt i on i n s ex cr i m es i nvol vi ng chi l dr en i n s uch
a w ay thatthi s C ourtis “ai d[ i ng] onl y thos e w ho l eas tdes erve i t s benef i t s : thos e w ho
r epea t edl y com m i ts exual l y vi ol entact s and pr edat ory pedophi l es . ” L am bert , 724 So. 2d at 395 (M i l l s , J. , di s s ent i ng)
. St at ed di f f er ent l y, w e f

i nd thatourhol di ng i n Mitc h e ll, r eaf f i rm ed i n L am bert , does i rr ever s i bl e harm t o the mosti nnocentand def ens el es s i n s oci ety – our yo un g ch i l dren. A s i tst and s now , the st atus of the law i n M i ssi ssi pp i i s that evi d en ce o f a d efe n d an t’ s sex u al ab u se o f othe r m ino r victi m s i s pe r se i n ad m issi b le u n d e r R u le 4 0 4 (b), ther eby el i m i nat i ng t he bal anci ng t es tr equi r ed underR ul e 403. T hi s i s t ot al l y contr ary t o our ru le s o f e v id e n c e a n d w e ll- e s ta b lis h e d c a s e la w . G ive n s v . Sta te , 967 So. 2d 1, 9 ( M i s s . 2007) ( R ul e 403 i s ul t i m at e f

i l t erthr ough w hi ch r el evante vi dence mustpa s s) (quot i ng Jones v. S ta te , 9 2 0 S o . 2 d 4 6 5 , 4 7 5 (M is s . 2 0 0 6 ))
. See al s o Ho o p s v . Sta te , 681 So. 2d 521, 530- 31 (M iss . 1 9 9 6 ); W

a tts v. S ta te , 6 3 5 S o . 2 d 1 3 6 4 , 1 3 6 8 (M iss . 1 9 9 4 ); J e n k in s v. Sta te , 507 So. 2 d 8 9 , 9 3 (M iss. 1 9 8 7 ).

### 12

¶1 9. A s d i d the di s s ent er s i n Mitc h e ll and L am bert , w e fin d n o lo g ic in th e re a lity th a t, notw i ths t andi ng the exi s t ence of w el l
- r eas oned l aw , thi s C ou rtpr evi ous l y has m ade a n exce pt i on in s ex- cr i m e ca s es i nvol vi ng chi l dr en w her e pot ent i al l y pr operR ul e 404( b) evi dence i s pers e i nadmi s s i bl e, w i thouteven a l l ow i ng the tr i al j udge t o conductthe pr oper R ul e 403 bal anci ng t es tt o det erm i ne i f otherw i s e r el evantevi dence sho ul d be exc l uded beca us e the pr obat i ve val ue of s uch evi dence i s s ubs t ant i al l y outw ei ghed by the dange rof unf ai rpre j udi ce ( orconver s el y, i f ot herw i s e r el evantevi dence shoul d be adm i t t ed beca us e the probati ve v al ue o f s uch evidence is n o t su b sta n tially o u tw e ig h e d b y th e d a n g e r o f u n fa ir pr ej udi ce)
. A s J us t i ce M i l l s s t at ed i n hi s di s s enti n L am bert , notonl y i s the Mitch e ll
- m ade l aw f l aw ed, i ti s “r i di cul ous , ” bec aus e “[ a] ccor di ng t o Mitch e ll l ogi c, a s appl i ed i n [L am bert], i f evi dence i s ef

f ect i ve , i tm us tbe pr ej udi ci al s i nce i tt ends t o es t abl i s h the truth, i tm us tbe
s tr i cken. ” L am bert , 7 2 4 S o . 2 d at 39 5 (M il ls, J. , d issen ti n g ) (em p h asis in o ri g inal). ¶2 0 . F o r th ese rea so n s, w h il e w e a g ree w ith J u stic e G ra v e s’s a ffirm a n c e o f D ero u en ’s
con vict i on and sent ence o n d i rectapp eal , w e l i kew i se rule i n favor of the S t at e on i t s cr ossappea l and unequi vocal l y overrul e and bury Mitch e ll and i t s proge ny, i ncl udi ng L am bert , as thes e ca s es r el at e t o the pers e exc l us i on of evi dence of

a s exual of

f ens e, ot hert han the one char ged, w hi ch i nvol ves a vi ct i m otherthan the vi ct i m of the cha r ged of

f ens e f orw hi ch the
ac cu sed is on tr ial
. S tat ed d if feren tl y , suc h ev iden ce , if p rop erly a d m itted u n d er R u le 40 4 (b), fil ter e d th ro u g h R u le 4 0 3 , an d a c c o m p a n ied b y a n a p p rop ri ately-d rafted lim it ing o r ca u ti o n ary instruction to the jury , sh o u ld n o t be c o n side red p er se erro r. ¶21. Fi nal l y, w e f

i nd thati ti s now t i m e f

orthi s C our tt o cons i deramendi ng the M i s s i s s i ppi R ul es of E vi dence by w ay of

the adopt i on of

rul es model ed af

t erFede r al Rul es of

E vi dence

### 13

413 and 414; ther ef

or e, thi s m att eri s re f

err ed t o thi s C our t ’ s R ul es C om m i t t ee f ors tudy and
re c o m m e n d a tio n to th e e n b a n c C o u rt. ¶22. COUNT S I AND I I : CONVI CT I ONS OF T OU CH I NG A C HI L D F OR LU S TF UL P URP OS ES W HI LE I N A P OS I TI ON OF TR US T OR A UT HORI TY AND SENTE NC ES O F FI FTEEN ( 1 5 ) YE AR S I N T H E C USTO DY O F TH E M I SS I SS I PPI DE P ART M EN T OF CORRE CT I ONS , W I TH E I GHT ( 8 ) YEARS TO S ER VE AND BA LA NCE OF S EN TE NCE S TO B E ON P OS T- RE LE ASE S UP ER VI S I ON, A F F I R M E D . S E N T E N C E S I N C O U N T S I A N D I I S H A L L R U N C O N C U R R E N T L Y . PAR T I : W AL LER A ND D I AZ, P. J J . , CA RL SON , DI CK I NSO N, RA ND O LPH A N D L A M A R , J J ., C O N C U R . S M I T H , C .J ., C O N C U R S I N P A R T . E A S L E Y , J ., CO NCU RS I N PART AND I N RESULT. P ART I I : CARLS ON, J . , S M I TH, C. J . , W AL LE R, P . J . , DI CKI NS ON, RAN DO LPH AND LA M AR, JJ . , CO NCU R. GR AVES, J . , DI S S ENTS W I TH SE P A R A T E W R I T T E N O P I N I O N JO I N E D B Y D I A Z, P . J. , A N D E A SL E Y , J.

GR AV E S , J US T I CE , DI S S E NT I NG : P A R T T WO THE S TA TE ’ S CROS S - AP P EA L ¶23. W hi l e I w r i t e t o a f f i rm D er ouen’ s c onvi ct i on i n PartO ne s etouta bove, I w oul d decl i ne t o overrul e Mitch e ll v. S ta te , 53 9 S o. 2d 13 66 (M i ss. 19 89 ), p u rsua n t t o the Stat e’s cross a p p e a l
. T h e r e f

o r e , I r e s p e c t f

u l l y d i s s e n ta s t o Pa r tI I . T h e S t a t e a t t e mp t e d t o c a l l two
w i tnes s es attr i al t o t es t i f y as t o pr i or i ncident s of s exual abus e by D er ouen aga i ns tother
c h ild re n . T h e trial c o u rt fo u n d th a t su c h e v id e n c e w a s in a d m iss ib le in a c c o rd a n c e w ith Mitch e ll . O n cr os s - appea l , the Stat e asks thi s C our tt o overrul e Mitch e ll as t o the f i ndi ng re g a rd in g th e a d m iss io n o f e v id e n c e o f u n re late d c rim e s a g a in st o th e r c h ild re n . H o w e v e r, th is C our tpr evi ous l y addr es s ed thati s s ue i n L a m b e rt v. Sta te , 72 4 S o . 2d 3 9 2 (M iss. 1 9 9 8 ). In L am bert , thi s C our tcl ar i f i ed Mitch e ll

by acknow l edgi ng thatther e may be a ca s e w her e s uch

### Ru le 41 3 o f the F ederal Rules o f E vid ence (F .R.E .) pro vid es, in relev ant p art: 3 

### In a

crimin alca sein whi ch the de fe ndant is ac cus ed of

an of fe nseof se xualas sa

ult , e vidence of the de fe ndant ' s c ommis si on of another off ens e or o f f e ns e s o f s e xu a la s s ault

i s a dmi s s ibl e , and

m ay be con sideredfor its b earingonanymatter to whichit is relevant. F.R .E. 4 13 (a). Further, Rule 4 14 pro vid es, in relev ant p art:

In a criminal c as e in whic h thedef endant i s a cc used o f an offens e of chi ld m ole st ation, e videnceof the def endant' s c ommis si on of another off ens e or off ens es of childmole st ation i s a dmi ss ibl e, and m ay be con sideredfor its b earingonanymatter to whichit is relevant. F.R. E. 414( a)
. 14 e v id e n c e o f

o th e rc ri m e s c o u ld b e a d m is s ib le
. I d. a t 3 9 4 . M o re o v e r, w h ile fe d e ra l co u rts have a dm i t t ed s uch evi dence , thi s C our thas notadopt ed the appl i cabl e f eder al rul es pr ovi di ng f orthe admi s s i on of

s uch evi dence
. T her ef or e, I w oul d decl i ne t o overrul e Mitch e ll a t th is 3 tim e a n d fin d th e S tate ’s c ro ss -a p p e a l to b e w ith o u t m e rit. A c c o rd in g ly , I d iss e n t. DI AZ , P . J . , AND E AS LE Y, J . , J OI N T HI S OP I NI ON.