## Facts

- Richard “Ricky” Buchanan Hobgood lived at times with his girlfriend and her two minor children in Jackson, Mississippi.
- A five-year-old boy later reported that Hobgood forced anal sexual acts on him, which the child described as “bad medicine.”
- While being babysat at his grandmother’s home, the child spontaneously disclosed the abuse to the babysitter and repeated the account consistently to his grandmother.
- The child was taken to a psychotherapist, Denise Detotto, and described repeated painful anal penetration; he also reported being instructed to perform “bad medicine” on his younger sister.
- The child attended therapy for about a year, during which his description remained consistent and Detotto used assessment methods typical in child sexual abuse evaluations.
- At trial, the child did not testify; the State introduced the child’s out-of-court statements through witnesses and presented corroborating physical/medical evidence.
- Hobgood was convicted of sexual battery of a child under 14 and sentenced to life imprisonment under Mississippi’s mandatory sentencing statute.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court properly found the child witness unavailable under Mississippi Rule of Evidence 804 and admitted the child’s statements under the tender-years hearsay exception.
2. Whether testimony repeating the child’s out-of-court statements constituted inadmissible hearsay or impermissible “double hearsay.”
3. Whether the psychotherapist’s testimony improperly vouched for the child’s credibility or was otherwise inadmissible under Rule 702.
4. Whether expert testimony about behaviors and indicators associated with child sexual abuse was admissible to assist the jury.
5. Whether excluding certain defense evidence as irrelevant violated the right to present a defense.
6. Whether a mandatory life sentence could be imposed without a separate sentencing hearing or consideration of alternatives.

## Decision

- The Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and life sentence.
- The trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding the child unavailable and admitting statements under the tender-years exception.
- The child’s statements to the psychotherapist were admissible under the medical diagnosis/treatment hearsay exception.
- The challenged hearsay did not require reversal; multiple consistent accounts were properly admitted under applicable exceptions.
- The expert testimony was not reversible error as improper vouching; any arguable error was harmless given corroborating evidence.
- Admission of expert testimony regarding child sexual abuse patterns and disclosure was within the trial court’s discretion under Rule 702.
- Exclusion of certain defense evidence was not an abuse of discretion and did not deny a fair trial.
- The life sentence was mandated by statute, and no separate sentencing hearing was required.

## Legal Principles

- A young child’s statements describing sexual abuse made for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment, including to a psychotherapist, are admissible under Mississippi Rule of Evidence 803(4) even if later used in prosecution.
- Under the tender-years framework, a child’s out-of-court statements describing sexual abuse may be admitted when the child is of tender years, the statements show reliability, corroborating circumstances support trustworthiness, and the child is properly found unavailable under Rule 804.
- When multiple layers of out-of-court statements are offered, each level must satisfy a hearsay exception; repetition by adult witnesses is admissible when the underlying child statements are admissible under an exception.
- Expert testimony under Rule 702 may assist the jury by explaining child sexual abuse dynamics and disclosure characteristics, but credibility determinations remain for the jury and experts may not directly opine on guilt.
- Even if expert testimony approaches impermissible vouching, reversal is not required where any error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt in light of the whole record.
- Where a statute mandates a particular sentence for the convicted offense, the trial court may impose the required sentence without a separate evidentiary sentencing hearing, absent an independent constitutional violation.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the admission of a child victim’s out-of-court statements under tender-years and medical-treatment exceptions, found no reversible error in related hearsay and expert-testimony rulings, and affirmed a statutorily mandated life sentence for sexual battery of a child under 14.


Hobgood v. State, 926 So. 2d 847 (Miss. 2006)