Opinion ID: 1778765
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Hearsay Violation

Text: ś 92. Manning next asserts that the trial court erred in overruling defense objections to hearsay testimony. The complained of testimony came from Frank Parker, a witness for the prosecution who overheard a conversation between Manning and an inmate named Miami. He was questioned by the prosecution about what he overheard. The defense objected on the basis of hearsay. The court overruled the objection because the defendant was present when this occurred. ś 93. This testimony was admissible as an adoptive admission. Miss.R.Evid. 801(d)(2)(B) provides: (d) Statements Which Are Not Hearsay. A statement is not hearsay if: (2) Admission by Party-Opponent. The statement is offered against a party and is ... (B) a statement of which he has manifested his adoption or belief in its truth, ... The common law version of this rule was set out in Jolly v. State, 269 So.2d 650 (Miss. 1972). In that case, this Court said; [S]tatements made by a third person, which tend to incriminate an accused, are admissible so long as they are made in the presence of the accused and are not contradicted, denied, nor objected to by the accused. Jolly, 269 So.2d at 656. ś 94. In the case sub judice, Miami's statements were made in the presence of Manning and he did not contradict, deny, or object to them. The general theory is that under these circumstances, Manning would have objected to the statements by Miami if they were untrue. When Miami asked what Manning did with the gun and Manning replied, I had sold it on the street, he in effect admitted the statement as true. Under both the common law view and the rule of evidence, the conversation between Manning and Miami was properly admitted as an adoptive admission. ś 95. Manning also asserts that it was error for the trial judge to say the defendant was present when this occurred, because it assumed as true a fact in issueâ that Manning was present when these statements were made. We disagree. The trial judge did not have to assume this fact. Parker testified that Manning was there having the conversation with Miami. The judge simply restated what a witness had related as fact. ś 96. We find no reversible error in this assignment of error.