Goforth v. State
Mississippi Supreme Court
70 So. 3d 174 (2011)
- Written by Angela Patrick, JD
Facts
Amanda Goforth (defendant) was charged with sexual battery of a former student. A witness, Chase Rigdon, told the police that he had gone to Goforth’s house with the student victim. Rigdon also said that he had witnessed and participated in sexual acts with Goforth and the victim at the house. However, after Rigdon gave this statement, he was in a serious car accident that left him with significant memory issues. In particular, Rigdon had no memory of giving the statement to the police or any of the events described in the statement. At Goforth’s trial, the trial court ruled that Rigdon was available for cross-examination, and Rigdon’s prior statement to the police was introduced as evidence. Rigdon was placed on the witness stand for cross-examination about his police statement. However, Rigdon testified that he could not remember anything about the statement or the events described in the statement. Rigdon further testified that he recognized his signature on the statement but could only guess that he had actually provided the information above his signature. Goforth was convicted. Goforth appealed, arguing that Rigdon was not actually available for cross-examination and that his police statement should have been excluded.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Waller, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 812,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.