Opinion ID: 2672299
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Credibility Testimony

Text: ¶13. Chaupette’s attorney questioned the source of Claire’s abuse allegations with the following questions during his cross-examination of Banano: Q. You would agree with me, wouldn’t you, that [Claire] has been reminded of this over and over and over, over all these years by [Ann] and her grandmother?
... Q. And you would agree with me that a child that’s four years of age or five years of age, once something is repeatedly drummed into their little mind, they can succumb to suggestions, can’t they? A. Yes. They are susceptible to suggestion. 23 See Griffin v. McKenney, 877 So. 2d 425, 441 (Miss. Ct. App. 2003) (holding admission of expert testimony from a lay witness did not warrant reversal when error did not substantially prejudice the opposing party). 9 Q. Sure, sure. And sometimes they can actually believe things that are not true? A. They can. As a result, Banano was allowed, over Troy’s objection, to provide the following testimony on redirect: Q. Deslie, you were asked a lot of questions on Cross-Examination about the susceptibility of a four year old to people talking to them? A. Yes. Q. Do you feel like that was the case in this situation? A. No. I do not. On appeal, Troy alleges this testimony was an inappropriate “truthfulness” opinion. We disagree. ¶14. Testimony regarding a child sex-abuse victim’s credibility is not highly regarded, being considered “of dubious competency.” 24 However, such testimony is permissible so long as it does not comment on the truthfulness of the victim’s accusations and is especially warranted when a victim’s credibility previously has been attacked.25 ¶15. Testimony similar to that at issue here was challenged in Hosford v. State.26 In Hosford, the defendant suggested that the child sex-abuse victim had confused him with 24 Hobgood v. State, 926 So. 2d 847, 853 (Miss. 2006). 25 Id. at 854; see also Hosford v. State, 560 So. 2d 163, 166-67 (Miss. 1990) (holding it was appropriate to allow a child’s therapist to testify about the quality of the child’s sexual-abuse allegations in order to “negat[e] the defense position that the victim had confused [the defendant] with other abusers”); Elkins v. State, 918 So. 2d 828, 831-32 (Miss. Ct. App. 2005) (holding it was appropriate to allow a social worker to testify that the victim’s “behavior and demeanor were consistent with those of children who have been sexually abused” and that the victim kept her story straight, unlike most children who have been coached to lie about abuse). 26 Hosford, 560 So. 2d at 166-67. 10 other abusers.27 In response, the child’s therapist was allowed to provide the following testimony: Q. In what Billy had done to her as opposed to what other individuals had done to her, has she been consistent in that regard? A. Correct. Q. Based upon your educational background and your counseling sessions with [the child], do you have an opinion as to the possibility that [the child] has confused Billy Hosford with other individuals who have victimized her? ... A. I don't think that she has confused what has happened, primarily because of what I have already said. The emotional response that she has toward each perpetrator is very specific; very, very specific. And that toward him is specific also.28 The Court did not find this line of questioning to be reversible error, stating: Viewed out of context, the above-quoted testimony treads close to the brink of reversible error as a comment upon the truthfulness of the child’s accusations. Had such statements been made wholly without reference to the impeachment of the victim on cross-examination, reversible error may well have occurred. In Williams v. State, 539 So. 2d 1049, 1051 (Miss. 1989), the Court held such testimony “of dubious competency.” We do not retreat from these cases but hold, under the particular circumstances of this case, that [the therapist]’s brief testimony, negating the defense position that the victim had confused appellant with other abusers, did not rise to the level of bolstering and is not reversible error.29 ¶16. As in Hosford, the trial court here had to determine to what extent the State could respond to Troy’s attack on Claire’s credibility. Banano was allowed to say only that she did 27 Id. 28 Id. at 166. 29 Id. at 166-67. 11 not believe Claire had been brainwashed by her mother and grandmother. She did not say Claire was telling the truth or even that she found Claire to be credible. Banano’s testimony was shorter and less revealing than that permitted in Hosford. As such, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by allowing her comment. This issue is without merit.