The Mississippi Supreme Court then reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated Mr. Clark's conviction holding that Dr. Lakin's expert testimony satisfied Dauberfs reliability requirement. Clark v. State, 315 So.3d 987 (Miss. 2021). Finally, after exhausting all other postconviction remedies, Mr. Clark filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus with this Court.

This Court will not reverse a trial judge's decision to exclude evidence unless we find that the trial judge's decision was arbitrary and clearly erroneous. Clark v. State, 315 So.3d 987, 994 (Miss. 2021).

Further, formal language is not required in making a finding under the Daubert standard. See generally Clark v. State, 315 So.3d 987 (Miss. 2021), cert. denied, 142 S.Ct. 466 (2021). ¶43. In the present case, a four-year-old child was forced into an adult world, when sexually abused, while still emotionally immature.

In Weathersby, the supreme court recognized a rule in Mississippi "that where the defendant or the defendant's witnesses are the only eyewitnesses to the homicide, their version, if reasonable, must be accepted as true, unless substantially contradicted in material particulars by a credible witness ... or by the physical facts or by the facts of common knowledge." Clark v. State, 315 So.3d 987, 998 (¶28) (Miss. 2021) (quoting Weathersby, 147 So. at 482)), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 142 S.Ct. 466, 211 L.Ed.2d 283 (2021). ¶78.

The admission of expert testimony is also reviewed under the abuse-of-discretion standard. Clark v. State , 315 So. 3d 987, 993-94 (¶6) (Miss. 2021). "Therefore, the decision of a trial court will stand ‘unless we conclude that the discretion was arbitrary and clearly erroneous, amounting to an abuse of discretion.’ "

The jury ultimately decided the issue of the cause of Derek's injury. In Clark v. State , 315 So. 3d 987, 997 (¶23) (Miss. 2021), Justice Chamberlain stated for the majority, "That one party's expert witness contradicts the testimony of the other party's expert witness should come as no surprise. We even have a name for it.

Admissibility and credibility are two entirely separate issues. See, e.g., Clark v. State, 315 So.3d 987, 997 (Miss. 2021) (deeming a trial court's determination that one expert was more credible than the other to be "irrelevant to the admissibility" of the other expert's testimony).

As one appellate court outside of our jurisdiction recognized, "[r]ather than becoming the gatekeeper, our function is to determine whether the actual gatekeeper, the trial judge, has abused his discretion in performing that role in a particular case." Clark v. State, 315 So.3d 987, 995 (Miss. 2021). Because the circuit court did not make the required Rule 702 findings prior to admitting the expert witnesses' testimony in this case, this Court is not in a position to properly assess the DHS's argument that the circuit court erred by disregarding the testimony of D.S.'s treating physicians in favor of the testimony of Respondents' experts who, according to the DHS, set forth "a novel legal argument . . . that is unsupported by the medical evidence."

It is possible for the State to overload its burden of proof unnecessarily by saying too much in an indictment. See Murrell v. State, 655 So. 2d 881, 883-85 (Miss. 1995), disagreed with on other grounds by Dilworth v. State, 909 So. 2d 781 (Miss. 2005), disagreed with by Clark v. State, 315 So. 3d 987 (Miss. 2021); Spears v. State, 294 So. 3d 637 (Miss. Ct. App. 2019) (the State brought on itself the additional burden of proving multiple subsections of the sexual assault statute by placing them, unnecessarily, in the indictment).

This includes the Court's granting of a lesser-included-offense instruction. Clark v. State , 315 So. 3d 987, 994, 1004 (Miss. 2021).