Opinion ID: 1956793
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: issues common to both trials

Text: ¶ 6. Foley contends that in both cases the trial court erred by allowing statements of K.F. to be brought before the jury through the testimony of medical professionals who examined or interviewed K.F. The State called a number of medical professionals and counselors as part of its case-in-chief. One of those witnesses, Dr. Cash, was to testify as to statements made to her by K.F. Recognizing that such statements would be hearsay, the circuit court judge first determined that the statements of K.F. to Dr. Cash would be admissible under Mississippi Rule of Evidence 803(4) as a statement made for the purposes of medical treatment, and thus an exception to the hearsay rule of exclusion. [1] ¶ 7. K.F.'s statements made to Dr. Cash in the course of therapy fall easily into the exception outlined above. In addition to the exception under M.R.E. 803(4), the circuit court judge interviewed K.F. and found her to be unavailable as a witness due to her young age and because of developmental characteristics that would make questioning of her impractical, if not impossible. K.F.'s age, court-determined unavailability, and the nature of the allegations in the case put K.F.'s statements squarely within the tender years exception to hearsay as provided by Mississippi Rule of Evidence 803(25). [2] ¶ 8. As stated above, though, M.R.E. 803(25) requires a three-pronged test be met before a child's testimony may admissible in evidence under the tender years exception. First, it must be shown that a child of tender years has described some sexual contact with or on the child by another; second, the court must find that a number of factors show that the statements contain substantial indicia of reliability; and finally, either the child must testify at the proceedings or be unavailable. Before a child may be rendered unavailable, however, M.R.E. 803(25) requires that there be corroborative evidence of the act before the statement(s) be admitted. The first criterion is easily met inasmuch as K.F. was five to six years old at the time of her allegations of sexual abuse. As to the prong concerning substantial indicia of reliability, the comments to M.R.E. 803(25) give a number of factors to be considered when determining whether a child's allegations of sexual abuse meet the reliability standard. [3] ¶ 9. In the present case, the circuit court judge interviewed K.F. personally and examined the context of the statements she made. We find that K.F.'s statements had the requisite substantial indicia of reliability and the circuit judge's decision to apply the tender years exception to K.F.'s testimony was not in error. K.F.'s comments, spontaneously made to a number of professionals trained to detect abuse and its effects, showed an overwhelming sense of adult knowledge of sexual topics of which children in their earliest years should have no knowledge. Additionally, the statements were made without the presence of adults who might have coached her and, based on expert testimony, were voluntarily given and not elicited by certain questions. The defense objected to the reliability of K.F.'s statements by pointing out the possibility that K.F.'s allegations were related to a custody battle, that there were allegations of abuse by people other than Foley, and that K.F. exhibited signs of immaturity. The circuit court judge, though, was in the best position to make that determination, and there is no evidence that the circuit judge faltered in finding K.F.'s statements contained the required substantial indicia of reliability. ¶ 10. The hearsay exception under M.R.E. 803(25) requires that a child either testify or, if unavailable, the child's statements are corroborated with evidence of the act alleged. The circuit judge determined that due to age and developmental issues, K.F. was unavailable to testify. Foley argues that this also made her statements unreliable, but M.R.E. 803(25) expressly contradicts this argument by allowing an unavailable child's testimony to be admissible so long as it passes the safeguards to protect against untrustworthy testimony. There is no doubt that the overwhelming physical evidence of abuse to K.F.'s person corroborated the statements by K.F. alleging sexual abuse. Thus, K.F's statements met all the criteria to find admission under the tender years exception and the medical statement exception to hearsay. Foley incorrectly avers that the circuit court restricted his Sixth Amendment rights to cross-examine K.F. by allowing the testimony of medical professionals to bring in K.F.'s comments. Foley's argument ignores the fact that such allowances make up the basic nature of hearsay exceptions based on the unavailability of the declarant. Foley's arguments to the contrary are without merit. ¶ 11. Foley asserts an additional argument on this issue in the appeal of his second trial. Foley asks us to find that allowing such testimony violated his Sixth Amendment right to confront adverse witnesses as discussed by the United States Supreme Court's decision in Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004). The United States Supreme Court's decision in Crawford held that out-of-court statements by witnesses that are testimonial in nature are not allowed under the Confrontation Clause unless the witness is unavailable and the defendant had a prior opportunity to cross-examine the witness. Id. Foley argues that admitting the testimony of medical personnel and counselors concerning K.F.'s statements violates Crawford because he had no chance to cross-examine K.F. Under Crawford, Foley must show that K.F.'s statements were testimonial in order for them to violate the Confrontation Clause. Id. at 50-53, 124 S.Ct. 1354. The Supreme Court stated that, at a minimum, statements of a testimonial nature include prior testimony at a preliminary hearing, before a grand jury, or at a former trial and police interrogations. Id. at 68, 124 S.Ct. 1354. The Court declined to further elaborate on its definition. Id. Statements made by K.F. do not fall into any of those categories, and Foley failed to argue or show that the therapists or medical professionals who testified concerning statements made by K.F. had contacted the police or were being used by the police as a means to interrogate K.F. or investigate her claims. See, e.g. State v. Snowden, 385 Md. 64, 867 A.2d 314, 326 (Md. 2005). K.F.'s statements were made as a part of neutral medical evaluations and thus do not meet Crawford's testimonial criterion. Thus, Foley's Crawford argument is without merit.
¶ 12. Foley argues that the circuit court in both cases erred in not granting his pretrial motion to suppress evidence obtained by a search warrant. Specifically, Foley argues that the warrant was not supported by probable cause and that the supporting affidavit and facts relied on hearsay. When reviewing a finding of probable cause to issue a warrant this Court does not make a de novo determination of probable cause, but only determines if there was a substantial basis for the magistrate's determination of probable cause. Smith v. State, 504 So.2d 1194, 1196 (Miss.1987). Federal and state common law favor a totality of the circumstances test when deciding if probable cause is present: The United States Supreme Court has established a totality of the circumstances standard for determining the existence of probable cause: The task of the issuing magistrate is simply to make a practical, common-sense decision based on all the circumstances set forth in the affidavit before him, including the veracity and basis of knowledge of persons supplying hearsay information. Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 2332, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983). We adopted the Gates totality of the circumstances test in Lee v. State, 435 So.2d 674, 676 (Miss.1983). State v. Woods, 866 So.2d 422, 425-26 (Miss.2003). ¶ 13. Probable cause has also been defined as more than a bare suspicion but less than evidence that would justify condemnation. Id. (citing Wagner v. State, 624 So.2d 60, 66 (Miss.1993)). Looking at the totality of the circumstances, K.F. specifically stated that Foley showed her pictures of nude people on his computer screen doing things she described as gross. She used language to describe acts performed on her and by her in relation to Foley in such sexually explicit terms that veracity could easily be inferred. Additionally, police were alerted to the fact that K.F.'s body showed evidence of recent sexual assault, and that she had been in the presence of Foley within the last seventy-two hours. When considering all of the circumstances present at the time of the warrant's issue, the circuit court judge did not err in either trial in his finding that probable cause did exist in refusing to suppress evidence recovered as a result of the warrant at issue.
¶ 14. Foley claims the circuit court erred in refusing his proposed instructions, D-3 and D-4. When examining a trial court's determination as to appropriate jury instructions, parties are only entitled to fair instructions giving adequate recitation of the law: [W]hile a party is entitled to have jury instructions submitted that represent his or her theory of the case, an instruction that incorrectly states the law, is covered fairly elsewhere in the instructions, or is without foundation in the evidence need not be submitted to the jury. Humphrey v. State, 759 So.2d 368, 380 (Miss.2000). This Court will not find reversible error where the instructions actually given, when read together as a whole, fairly announce the law of the case and create no injustice. Coleman v. State, 697 So.2d 777, 782 (Miss.1997) (citing Collins v. State, 691 So.2d 918, 922 (Miss.1997)). Entergy Miss., Inc. v. Bolden, 854 So.2d 1051, 1054 (Miss.2003). ¶ 15. Both of the proposed instructions dealt with instructing the jury on circumstantial evidence. [W]here there is direct evidence of a crime, the circumstantial evidence instruction need not be given. King v. State, 580 So.2d 1182, 1191 (Miss.1991) (citing Gray v. State, 549 So.2d 1316, 1324 (Miss.1989)). Additionally, a circumstantial evidence case is one in which there is neither an eyewitness nor a confession to the crime. Mangum v. State, 762 So.2d 337, 344 (Miss.2000). While there are certainly more types of direct evidence than eyewitness testimony or confessions, the instant case easily meets the standard in Mangum. K.F.'s statements about being shown pornography were introduced through the testimony of Dr. Cash and Barnes. K.F. was, of course, an eyewitness to the pornography, and this instance of direct evidence alone allowed the jury to be given direct evidence instructions only. Foley's argument to the contrary is without merit. ¶ 16. In his second trial, Foley's request for a jury instruction on circumstantial evidence was also rejected by the circuit court. The circuit judge found K.F.'s medical report constituted actual or direct evidence. Additionally, as stated before, the presence of an eyewitness necessarily precludes a case from having circumstantial evidence instructions. Id. K.F. was clearly an eyewitness to the abuse committed upon her person. Testimony by others clearly outlined this and introduced the jury to statements by K.F. since she was unavailable as a witness. Thus, the circuit court was not in error when it refused to present the jury with the defense's proposed circumstantial evidence instructions in either trial.