Opinion ID: 1101055
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Testimony of Dr. Ken Whittington

Text: ¶ 50. Whittington testified that A.R. was brought to his medical clinic for an examination as a result of an alleged sexual abuse. The State inquired as to whether a history of A.R. was taken during the examination. The Defense then objected as to the hearsay, which prompted hearings on the record and outside the presence of the jury. A proffer was made as to what Whittington's testimony would be. When asked by the State what the child related to him as to the history of his injury, Whittington responded that the child told him his uncle had placed his mouth on his penis and went up and down and that his uncle had also licked his rectum. Whittington then asked the child if he experienced burning while urinating, any discharge from his penis, any type of anal discharge, or any nightmares. ¶ 51. Whittington was then asked by the State if he examined the child to determine if there were signs of any sexual abuse. He stated that upon examining the child's penis he noticed several small abrasions accompanied with some scabbing. Whittington testified that he determined the abrasions were bite marks, which was consistent with the history the child had given him. ¶ 52. Whittington was cross-examined by the Defense and further examined on redirect by the State. The court then made the following findings: THE COURT: The Court hereby finds, as I have previously done, that the witness relating to the alleged victim who is the subject of Dr. Whittington's examination is obviously unavailable as a witness. The Court finds that this examination which was performed two or three days after the alleged incident, the content of that examination and the circumstances of the alleged victim receiving medical attention obviously provide a substantial indicia of reliability, and I will admit Dr. Whittington's testimony under 803(4) and 803(25). Whittington then testified as to these same matters in front of the jury. ¶ 53. The `substantial indicia of reliability' required by M.R.E. 803(25) are necessary to prevent confrontation clause problems. Eakes, 665 So.2d at 865 ( quoting Doe v. Doe, 644 So.2d 1199, 1206 (Miss. 1994)). The reliability of the statement must be judged independently of any corroborating evidence; otherwise, the confrontation clause may be violated. Id. (citing Doe, 644 So.2d at 1204). While no mechanical test is available, factors which should be considered in judging reliability are: spontaneity and consistent repetition; mental state of declarant; use of terminology unexpected of a child of similar age; and lack of motive to fabricate. Id. When the correct legal standard is used by the trial court, this Court will not reverse a finding of admissibility unless there is a finding of an abuse of discretion. Id. ¶ 54. Whittington stated that he walked into the room and asked, [A.R.], tell me what happened. A.R. replied that his uncle had placed his private parts in his mouth and went up and down. The statement was spontaneous and made in response to a very broad and general question asked by the doctor. Some factors that the court should examine to determine if there is sufficient indicia of reliability are ... whether the statements were made spontaneously [or] whether suggestive techniques were used in eliciting the statement. Miss. R. Evid. 803 cmt. 25. These factors are not, however, exclusive, and the court must make an overall determination of whether the child declarant was particularly likely to be telling the truth when the statement was made. Griffith v. State, 584 So.2d 383, 388 (Miss. 1991) ( quoting Idaho v. Wright, 497 U.S. 805, 822, 110 S.Ct. 3139, 3150, 111 L.Ed.2d 638 (1990)). ¶ 55. This Court finds that the trial judge found sufficient indicia of reliability as required by Miss. R. Evid. 803(25) and did not abuse his discretion by admitting the testimony of Whittington. Therefore, his testimony was properly admitted after the appropriate hearings were had on the record finding that under the two-part test there was substantial indicia of reliability.