Opinion ID: 1143911
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Controverted

Text: From this point, the majority engages in a flight of fancy regarding State Farm's primary purpose in presenting the impeachment evidence and falls into fallacy. What rules permit is not made impermissible by a covered actor's motive. See, e.g., Avery v. State, 555 So.2d 1039, 1042 (Miss. 1990). No litigant intentionally offers evidence not designed to advance his cause or deter his adversary's. He always hopes to harm his opponent. The occasions are legion where a party employs a rule to some tactical end never thought to justify the rule. If we are about to embark on a course of limiting counsel's motives, we are biting off quite a bit. Beyond this, we are about to distort the trial practice from what it has long been, and without perceived inconvenience. Disregarding these realities, today's majority finds that State Farm's purpose was to put before the jury substantive evidence not otherwise admissible and predicates reversal on this finding. The majority indulges in the factually dubious and legally impermissible. The stage need be set. In opening statement, counsel for State Farm announced he would call Susie Arnett and told the jury how he hoped she would testify. [3] When time came to present its case, State Farm then called Arnett and through her, sought to elicit evidence that the Coopers burned their house. If Susie Arnett had testified that Faye Cooper told her they burned their house down, this would have been an admission by party opponent. Rule 801(d)(2)(A), Miss.R.Ev. Because State Farm had an objectively reasonable basis for believing Arnett may testify to this effect, it had the right to call her and ask the question. For State Farm this is a gamble tactically worth taking. If Arnett admits she made the call, then State Farm has more evidence, an admission in fact, that the Coopers burned their house. If Arnett fails to say what she had said before, at worst State Farm is disappointed though hardly seriously damaged  Arnett's credibility was an issue in the case only if State Farm chose to make it one. Besides, no one would be shocked that Arnett refused to testify in a manner harmful to her sister. More likely, State Farm can call its agents to show an arguable reason in defense of the bad faith refusal claim, and, coincidentally, to discredit Arnett. It is certainly true that Arnett admitted to the investigator that she had phoned the State Farm office but refused to give a recorded statement. State Farm was on notice that Arnett may waffle. At the time she contradicted her prior statements, Arnett was not under oath. I see no reason why State Farm was not of right entitled to rely on the coercive effect of the penalties for perjury to produce truthful testimony from Arnett. The law demands but one ticket of a party who would pursue such a point: an objectively good faith belief that the witness will testify as proffered. Lanier v. State, 533 So.2d 473, 487 (Miss. 1988). In answer, the majority relies on a sentence of dicta from Harrison v. State, 534 So.2d 175, 178 (Miss. 1988), taken out of context. I read Harrison to be wholly consistent with affirmance today. In Harrison, the prosecution called Ray Lee Patty and then proceeded to ask him about statements allegedly made to a police officer the day after the murder was committed. Patty had been with the defendant but did not witness the murder. It would appear from the defendant's objection the prosecution knew the witness was going to testify adversely to the prosecution's wishes. Harrison nevertheless held Rule 613(b) allowed the prosecution to call the police officer to the stand to testify to the prior inconsistent statements. That is what  and all  State Farm did here. Brown v. State, 556 So.2d 338, 341 (Miss. 1990) is not to the contrary. Nothing said there questions admissibility of the prior inconsistent statements. Rather, Brown re-emphasizes that these may serve only to impeach and may not be considered as substantive evidence when the evidence is tested for its sufficiency to support a jury verdict. It's not that our rulemakers did not think of what (I think) bothers the majority. Rule 403, Miss.R.Ev., provides that evidence, otherwise admissible may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, ... The rule reaches the effect of disputed evidence, not counsel's intent in offering it. This premise has been recognized by the leading treatise in the field. Instead of placing so much emphasis on the motive of the profferor, an approach more consistent with the underlying policy of the Federal Rules of Evidence would be to analyse the problem in terms of Rule 403  is the probative value of the impeaching evidence outweighed by its prejudicial impact? 3 Weinstein's Evidence, ¶ 607[01], p. 607-20 (1988). We have held Rule 403 the ultimate filter through which all otherwise admissible evidence must pass. Ford v. State, 555 So.2d 691, 693 (Miss. 1989), quoting Jenkins v. State, 507 So.2d 89, 93 (Miss. 1987). Rule 403 applies to evidence relevant only to the credibility of a witness, as well as evidence substantively relevant. Foster v. State, 508 So.2d 1111, 1119 (Miss. 1987) (citing Brumley Estate v. Iowa Beef Processors, Inc., 704 F.2d 1351 (5th Cir.1983)); See also, Shearer v. State, 423 So.2d 824, 826 (Miss. 1982). What is fundamental is that Rule 403's filter finds its form as an objective standard  whether probative value is substantially outweighed by prejudice, etc.  eschewing the illicit subjective world into which the majority would lead us. On this record I see no basis for saying the Circuit Court abused its Rule 403 discretion regarding the issue at bar. I certainly concede another viable perspective on this matter. The Circuit Court was not bound to rule as it did. Imagine that counsel for State Farm had said nothing of Susie Arnett in opening statement and State Farm had called Arnett as a witness and asked her whether she had called State Farm's office and made the statements attributed to her, and then received Arnett's denial. No doubt, at that point State Farm would have been disappointed, but many a litigant has called a witness only to have the witness testify other than anticipated, and thus to be disappointed. At that moment, State Farm's case had hardly suffered a fatal blow, nor had Arnett's credibility become such a central issue that impeachment was imperative. In some such cases, allowing counsel to proceed with the sort of impeachment allowed here produces the danger of unfair prejudice substantially outweighing the probative value the evidence may bear (on the issue of the credibility of the prior witness). The unfair prejudice may arise in part from the acknowledged inability of many lay jurors, though properly instructed, to distinguish between evidence admitted as substantive proof from evidence admitted for impeachment purposes only. [4] See Moffett v. State, 456 So.2d at 720. In such circumstances, the Circuit Court in its discretion may employ Rule 403 and deny the impeachment. Nothing I say here suggests I would have considered it error if the Circuit Court had invoked its discretionary authority under Rule 403 and held the impeachment testimony of Brown, Lomenick and McClain inadmissible. I say only that the predicate offered here  Arnett's admission that she did call State Farm and discuss the Coopers' claim, although otherwise denying the contents of the call as remembered by State Farm, coupled with the convincing testimony of three State Farm witnesses: Brown, Lomenick and McClain  leaves me with the view that the Court remained within the contours Rule 403 has wrapped around its authority when it allowed the impeachment testimony. See generally, Stringer v. State, 548 So.2d 125, 133-34 (Miss. 1989); May v. State, 524 So.2d 957, 965 (Miss. 1988); Haynes v. State, 520 So.2d 1367, 1369 (Miss. 1988).