Lupe and Ashford drove to Vivian Cooper's house, where Wallingford was staying, with Till following them. At trial, Till was permitted to testify, over objection, to the conversations he heard between Ashford and Wallingford on the first and third transactions. Each time Wallingford's objections were overruled and Till was permitted to testify as to the conversation that took place between Ashford and Wallingford. Wallingford argues that Till's testimony was inadmissible hearsay. Till's testimony was cumulative to evidence already before the court and, therefore, Wallingford was not prejudiced by the hearsay.
Trial courts have broad discretion in determining whether to admit or exclude testimony.
Absent a clear abuse of discretion, an appellate court will not interfere with a ruling on the admission or exclusion of evidence. Courts generally exclude hearsay because of the inherent lack of trustworthiness that accompanies such testimony. Ashford testified before Till. We find that Till' s testimony regarding the conversations he heard over the transmitter as to the first and third drug transactions were not hearsay and, thus, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the evidence. Alternatively, it argues that Wallingford's response, or lack thereof, to this greeting was a tacit admission and even if the testimony was hearsay, it would be admissible as an admission by a party opponent.