Opinion ID: 1101055
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Testimony of M.H.

Text: ¶ 56. Hennington complains that the testimony of M.H. was improperly ruled admissible by the trial judge. He claims there was no on the record finding, as required by Miss. R. Evid. 803(25). The record clearly shows that there was a hearing on the record to determine if there were sufficient indicia of reliability in the proffered testimony of M.H. ¶ 57. M.H. described the relationship prior to the sexual abuse between A.R. and Hennington as wonderful. They did things together, such as uncle type things. M.H. testified that she inquired why A.R. was having problems with his schoolwork. A.R. stated that he thought he maybe was being abused. M.H. and A.R. had done a study in Boy Scouts on the different types of abuse, such as emotional, physical, mental, and sexual. M.H. began to tell the court what A.R. said to her about sexual abuse when the Defense objected to this as hearsay. A hearing outside the presence of the jury took place, where M.H. testified as follows: STATE: What did he tell you, M.H.? M.H.: That he thought that that was what had been happening when I was talking about the  definition of sexual abuse? STATE: And did you ask him how this was happening? Tell me how the conversation proceeded. M.H.: I didn't think it was my child. I thought that some other child had told A.R. these things, and then A.R. told me no, that it was him. STATE: Did he indicate who, if anyone, had been doing this? M.H.: After a long pause he did. STATE: And who did he say? M.H.: Uncle Matt. STATE: Let me ask you something, M.H. Tell me, again, your child's relationship with his Uncle Matt. M.H.: It was a very close relationship with Uncle Matt. STATE: To further my understanding of that, he still has feelings for his uncle; is that correct? M.H.: Sure, he does? STATE: He loves his uncle. M.H.: Uh-huh. STATE: Do you have any reason to believe that your child would tell a lie on his uncle? M.H.: No. ¶ 58. M.H. was then cross-examined by the Defense as to what A.R. had related to her. The court then made the following findings on the record: THE COURT: Again, the time of the conversation between this witness and alleged victim being two days, the statements made by the child and the circumstances of the statement with his mother, I find it very difficult to understand the lack of reliability of that particular discourse and find that that is obviously under circumstances that would provide an indicia of reliability, and that the fact that the content of the statement is obviously corroborated by medical testimony, I'll admit the evidence. ¶ 59. It is true that the trial judge erred by considering the medical testimony of Whittington as a factor in finding sufficient indicia of reliability. The reliability of the statement must be judged independently of any corroborating evidence; otherwise the confrontation clause may be violated. Doe, 644 So.2d at 1206. To be admissible under the Confrontation Clause, hearsay evidence used to convict a defendant must possess indicia of reliability by virtue of its inherent trustworthiness, not by reference to other evidence at trial. Griffith, 584 So.2d at 388 ( quoting Idaho v. Wright, 497 U.S. at 822, 110 S.Ct. at 3150). However, there were other factors the judge considered. He considered the relationship between the mother and child. He considered the relationship between the child and the perpetrator and determined that there was not an apparent motive on the declarant's part to lie. ¶ 60. This Court finds there were sufficient indicia of reliability to allow the testimony of M.H. The lower court did not commit error by allowing the hearsay testimony of M.H., where she stated that A.R. told her that Hennington was the perpetrator who had sexually abused him.