Opinion ID: 1930051
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: was the evidence presented at trial sufficient to establish the ages of the victim and the defendant?

Text: The appellant's contention here is that the elements of the crime of fondling  which require that the victim be under fourteen years old and the perpetrator be over eighteen years old  were not proved beyond a reasonable doubt. According to Bandy, the best evidence of his and L.H.'s ages would have been birth certificates. At the time of the offense, the victim was five years old and the defendant was sixty. Thus, this is not a case where the absolute best obtainable evidence was required to resolve a close question of age. In this case, the issue raised by the appellant goes more to the sufficiency, and not the admissibility, of the evidence of L.H.'s and Bandy's age. In Messina v. New York Life Ins. Co., 173 Miss. 378, 161 So. 462 (1935), this Court held: The authorities seem to be in general accord that the best proof of age is the testimony of living witnesses who were present at the birth and distinctly remember the event, or who, although not present, yet were so situated as to have positive knowledge and rememberance of the date thereof. The authorities are fairly in agreement, also, that the equal, or very nearly equal, dependability are the definite statements or declarations of the person whose age is in question, made by him during his lifetime on solemn occasions when it was his bounden duty to speak the truth, and when there was no motive or occasion, actual or supposed, on his part to speak other than the truth. The authorities do not seem to be so well in accord as to the probative value of an official birth certificate, although they do generally hold that such a certificate is of a higher grade of evidence than mere opinions. 173 Miss. at 390, 161 So. at 464. L.H.'s age was established as five years old at the time of the incident, and six years old at the time of trial, by the testimony of L.H. and her mother. Her mother's testimony would be admissible, and sufficient, by the standard of Messina. See also Rule 803(19) of the Mississippi Rules of Evidence, which adopts, as an exception to the hearsay rule, Reputation among members of his family by blood, adoption, or marriage ... concerning a person's birth... . L.H.'s testimony is admissible under the rationale of Tisale v. Jefferson Standard Life Ins., 244 Miss. 839, 147 So.2d 122 (1962): [I]t is obvious that the appellant did not and could not have any personal knowledge as to the date of his birth. His information must have necessarily been based on hearsay. 244 Miss. at 846, 147 So.2d at 125. As for Bandy's age, he admitted it to the arresting officers. Since he was obviously over the age of eighteen, he had no motive to lie about his age, even if he were aware of the elements of the fondling statute. He thus falls squarely under the holding in Messina that his admission was competent evidence. See also Miss.R.Evid. 801(d)(2) (admissions by party.) There is no merit to this assignment of error.