Kimble Peter Smith v. State of Mississippi

Summary

The Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed Kimble Peter Smith's convictions for sexual battery and touching and handling a child for lustful purposes. The court rejected challenges to the sufficiency and weight of the evidence, the denial of a mistrial after an unedited videotape question was briefly heard, and the admission or qualification of forensic-interviewing expert testimony. The court emphasized that several evidentiary arguments were unpreserved because Smith did not object at trial.

Holdings

1. The evidence was sufficient to support both convictions because, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, a rational trier of fact could find beyond a reasonable doubt that Smith committed the charged acts and that every essential element of each offense was established.
2. The circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying Smith's motion for a new trial because the verdict was not so contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence that allowing it to stand would sanction an unconscionable injustice.
3. The trial court properly denied the motion for mistrial because the jury heard only the objectionable question, not the answer, and the court admonished the jury to disregard the question and draw no inference from it.
4. The challenge to Stovall's and Hess's qualifications and opinions was procedurally barred because Smith did not object at trial and stipulated that Hess was an expert. In any event, testimony concerning the credibility or reliability of the interviews, as distinguished from direct opinions about the children's veracity, was properly admitted under the circumstances.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the evidence was legally sufficient to support Smith's convictions for sexual battery and touching and handling a child for lustful purposes.
2. Whether the jury's verdict was against the overwhelming weight of the evidence.
3. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying a mistrial after the jury heard an improperly unedited question on a videotape concerning Smith's possible similar conduct with other children.
4. Whether the trial court erred in admitting testimony from Keith Stovall and Bente' Hess as experts in forensic interviewing and allowing testimony concerning the consistency and credibility of the children's interviews.

Disposition

affirmed