## Facts

- Amanda Goforth, a former Newton County High School biology teacher, was accused of engaging in sexual activity with a former student (“Jane Doe”), who was a minor at the time.
- Goforth had acted as a mentor to Doe and had involved school officials and the Mississippi Department of Human Services concerning Doe’s home and drug-related problems.
- After rumors of sexual misconduct surfaced, a school resource officer, Deputy Mark Spence, obtained statements during the investigation, including from Doe and Doe’s friend, Chase Rigdon.
- Rigdon gave a custodial statement to police asserting that he went with Doe to Goforth’s home and that he both witnessed and participated in sexual acts involving Goforth and Doe.
- After giving the statement, Rigdon was in a serious automobile accident that resulted in significant memory problems.
- By the time of trial, Rigdon had no memory of giving the police statement and no memory of the events described in it.
- At trial, the State offered Rigdon’s prior statement as substantive evidence. The trial court ruled Rigdon was “available” for cross-examination because he appeared in court and testified.
- On the stand, Rigdon repeatedly testified he could not remember the interview or the underlying events. He recognized his signature on the typed statement but could only guess that he had provided the information above his signature.
- The State’s case also included evidence that Goforth gave a Mirandized custodial statement acknowledging sexual activity with Doe on multiple occasions and describing threats Doe allegedly made.
- Doe’s credibility was a contested point at trial; Doe admitted that she had lied under oath in a prior school-district termination hearing.
- Goforth was indicted on five counts of sexual battery under Mississippi Code § 97-3-95(1)(c); the counts were identically worded and not differentiated by date, act, or other particulars.
- The jury returned a split verdict, convicting Goforth on two counts and acquitting her on three.
- Goforth appealed, arguing (among other things) that admission of Rigdon’s police statement violated the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause and that any retrial would violate double jeopardy because the counts were indistinguishable and the verdict was mixed.

## Issues

1. Whether admitting a witness’s prior testimonial police statement violates the Confrontation Clause when the witness appears at trial but cannot remember the events or making the statement, leaving no real opportunity for cross-examination.
2. Whether, after reversal, double jeopardy bars retrial when an indictment contains multiple identically worded counts and the jury returned both convictions and acquittals on those indistinguishable counts.

## Decision

- The Mississippi Supreme Court held that Rigdon’s total memory loss meant Goforth did not receive a constitutionally adequate opportunity to confront and cross-examine him about his prior custodial statement.
- The Court held that Rigdon’s statement to law enforcement was testimonial and that admitting it under these circumstances violated the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause.
- The Court concluded the error was not harmless, given the State’s use of Rigdon’s statement to corroborate the allegations and the credibility disputes in the case.
- The Court reversed the convictions and rendered judgment, holding that reprosecution would create an unacceptable risk of double-jeopardy violations because the five counts were identically worded and the jury’s split verdict made it impossible to determine which specific conduct corresponded to the acquittals versus the convictions.

## Legal Principles

- Testimonial hearsay (including custodial statements to law enforcement made during an investigation) may not be admitted against a defendant unless the declarant is subject to constitutionally adequate cross-examination at trial or the defendant previously had an opportunity to cross-examine the declarant.
- Physical presence of a witness is not enough by itself; the Confrontation Clause requires a meaningful chance to test the witness’s account through questioning aimed at perception, memory, and truthfulness.
- When a witness has no memory of both (a) the events described and (b) the making of the prior testimonial statement, cross-examination may be so empty that admission of the prior statement violates confrontation rights.
- An indictment that charges multiple counts in identical, non-particularized language can raise double-jeopardy problems if a jury returns a mixed verdict, because a later trial may risk retrying conduct for which the defendant was already acquitted.
- If reversal is required and the record does not permit separating acquitted conduct from convicted conduct due to indistinguishable counts, the proper disposition may be reversal and rendition to prevent double-jeopardy exposure.

## Conclusion

In *Goforth v. State*, the Mississippi Supreme Court set aside Goforth’s sexual-battery convictions because the State introduced a highly incriminating custodial police statement from a witness who, due to accident-related amnesia, could not remember the statement or the events and therefore could not be meaningfully cross-examined; and because the indictment’s multiple identically worded counts produced both acquittals and convictions, the Court rendered judgment to prevent any retrial that could place Goforth in jeopardy again for conduct the jury may have already rejected.


Goforth v. State, 70 So. 3d 174 (2011)