Opinion ID: 1093868
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: did the combination of prejudicial extraneous matters introduced before the jury deny appellant walker a fair and impartial trial?

Text: The first feature under this assignment of error is the complaint by the appellant that Charles Tisdale was allowed to put before the jury that the Jackson Advocate had been shot into prior to the occasion on which Walker is charged. At this point, it might be helpful to know that the Jackson Advocate had been fired into on one previous occasion in December and then on the occasion of this case in January. The first part of this assignment deals with the introduction of a series of photographs (Ex. 1  Ex. 8), which picture bullet holes in the glass front of the building and bullet holes on the inside of the building. The defense attorney, Mr. Stanfield, stated in the record that he had no objection to the introduction of these pictures into evidence. Tisdale was then asked by the district attorney if any of the bullet holes were in the building prior to the January shooting. Mr. Tisdale responded that at least two bullet holes were put into the office on the night of December 19th. There was no objection. Mr. Tisdale was then asked to circle on the photographic exhibit the bullet holes that were already in the building before the January shooting. This was done without objection. As no objection was made, this error was not preserved and there is no merit to it on appeal. The second prong of this assignment of error deals with testimony given by Mr. Tisdale in the presence of the jury that the Jackson Advocate had printed articles against the Ku Klux Klan. Mr. Tisdale was asked what kind of articles his newspaper was running before the shooting incident of January 16, 1982. The response was that the paper had carried articles that basically point out dangerous agendas in the community that affect black people, among them a series called Klan Watch, which dealt with issues relating to black people and the Klan in the United States. In response to the next question, which was Were those articles carried prior to January the 16th, 1982? A. Yes. Mr. Stanfield objected, on the grounds that this was inadmissible unless it could be specifically tied in with Mr. Walker as the defendant. Mr. Wingate informed the court that he could tie the articles to Mr. Walker, and the objection was overruled. The state failed to offer any further evidence to tie the Klan Watch articles to Mr. Walker, except that on cross-examination Mr. Walker admitted that he had once been a member of the Klan. While it was error to admit testimony about the articles in Klan Watch, the error is not one that demands or justifies reversal of this conviction. Rogers v. State, 266 So.2d 10 (Miss. 1972); Cooley v. State, 391 So.2d 614 (Miss. 1980). Walker also complains that, over his objection, Tisdale was allowed to testify that three men in a truck stopped his 24-year old daughter and threatened to blow her head off if Tisdale did not quit publishing the newspaper. And they also threatened Mr. Tisdale's grandson and said that he looked half-white and they did not need mongrels in Mississippi. Tisdale also testified that, because of these threats, his daughter had to leave law school and the state of Mississippi. On cross-examination of Mr. Tisdale, defense attorney Stanfield asked: Q. Are you saying that your newspaper, since you've been involved in it, has been a controversial type situation? A. Well, you could say that. Q. And you don't know  has the controversy been financial or has it been criticism or what? A. Well, there have been both... . . Questions in this vein continue on the cross-examination of Mr. Tisdale throughout the record. On redirect examination of Mr. Tisdale, Mr. Wingate opened by asking Tisdale if he had ever received threats and on how many occasions he received threats. After getting affirmative responses, Mr. Wingate asked: Q. Can you tell us about these threats? At that point, Tisdale began an answer that dealt with three men stopping his daughter. Mr. Stanfield objected on immateriality. Mr. Wingate responded that Mr. Stanfield had opened this line of questioning and the court overruled the objection. Thereafter, a long involved answer about threats was made by Mr. Tisdale. Included in this answer were the threats to his daughter, the threats to his grandson, an ad in the newspaper selling Doberman Pinschers at a ridiculously low price and giving Tisdale's phone number as the number to call, and about phone calls one of which said, Hey, hey, hey. KKK. We know where you live  I know where you live but you don't know where I live. and several office calls in which the caller said, Nigger, you're dead. Mr. Stanfield then again objected on the grounds that he did not open any threats to Tisdale's daughter on his cross-examination and that it was strictly prejudicial. He also moved for a mistrial. At this point, the trial court sustained the objection and instructed the jury to disregard any part of the answer that pertained to threats to Tisdale's daughter. Mr. Stanfield then objected to the testimony concerning the Doberman Pinschers, and that objection was overruled. The motion for a mistrial was denied. It is clear from the record that the court sustained the motion, although belatedly, and admonished the jury to disregard the testimony concerning the threats to the daughter. Any number of Mississippi cases hold that we presume the jury will follow the instructions of the court and, therefore, as to the threats to the daughter, the assignment of error is without merit. Hubbard v. State, 437 So.2d 430 (Miss. 1983); Whitlock v. State, 419 So.2d 200 (Miss. 1982); Harmon v. State, 453 So.2d 710 (Miss. 1984). Item 3 of assignment number two raises the question of the admissibility of the evidence about the ad for the puppies that has been previously discussed. On the authority of Hubbard, Whitlock and Harmon, this assignment of error is without merit. Item 4 under the second assignment of error complains about the testimony that Tisdale received numerous calls saying, Hey, hey, hey. KKK. and Nigger, you're dead. This testimony came at the conclusion of the testimony by Tisdale of the threats to his daughter and his grandchild. The trial court did not direct the jury to disregard this testimony. This testimony was not directly connected to the appellant. However, on cross-examination of Mr. Tisdale by appellant's attorney, Tisdale responded that he had talked to some of the people who had threatened them. Then Mr. Stanfield said: Q. All right. Who  A. Some call me up in the middle of the night and say, We're gonna kill you, you GD nigger. So those are the kind that I've talked with. Murphy v. State, 453 So.2d 1290 (1984), which states the rule that the door may not be opened for the entrance of hearsay, would not apply here for the Murphy case also stands for the proposition that if the testimony is merely collateral, irrelevant or otherwise damaging, you can open the door on cross-examination. Murphy cites as authority for this proposition, Reddix v. State, 381 So.2d 999 (1980), where the appellant's attorney on cross-examination introduced the subject matter of the Stilson wrench and Jefferson v. State, 386 So.2d 200 (1980), where the defendant's attorney put the defendant's prior crimes before the jury on cross-examination. Also relied upon is Sanders v. State, 219 So.2d 913 (1969). Therefore, these two statements are not error, and if they were error they were not reversible as hearsay under Murphy v. State . Furthermore, from the record, it is difficult if not impossible to determine if these statements were made to Tisdale prior to the shooting on the night of January 16th, 1982, or after the shooting of January 16, 1982. It should be borne in mind that the trial was not held until September 29, 1982. The most troubling part of the assignment of error under assignment two is the testimony on the redirect examination of Mr. Tisdale. On cross-examination, Mr. Stanfield elicited responses from Mr. Tisdale concerning then Chief Black of the Jackson Police Department. On redirect, Mr. Wingate asked the following question: Q. Were there any articles in your paper prior to the shooting that concerned Klan activity? BY MR. STANFIELD: Your Honor, we object as not being proper redirect. BY THE COURT: Overruled. A. Well, there were  are you talking about December the 4  December the 19th shooting or the January 16th  Q. The January shooting. A. Yes. There was an article that, in fact, I had not myself noticed, but Chief Black attributed an article carried in the 13th  in the December the 13th edition which stated that one of our employees who wrote the article wife had been threatened by a Klansman who iden  who called his house and identified themselves as a Klansman, threatening his wife's life and according to Chief Black's interpretation, the writer had issued a challenge by saying he wasn't afraid of the Klan and if they wanted to meet him man to man, he would be happy to do so. And, of course, this is what Chief Black said was the cause of the shooting. BY MR. STANFIELD: Your Honor, of course, we object to Chief Black's interpretation. He's testifying to hearsay and he has been since Henry got him back on redirect. BY THE COURT: Overruled. I believe you opened this up yourself, Mr. Stanfield. BY MR. STANFIELD: I want the record to show that we have a continuing objection to this line of testimony. BY THE COURT: You make your objections as you want them. Overruled. There can be no question but that this testimony by Tisdale of what Chief Black said and what Chief Black interpreted was rank hearsay and inadmissible. It is true that the defendant opened the question of Chief Black on cross-examination, but Murphy v. State does hold that you cannot open the door to hearsay, and the state cannot sit silently by and then rush through the open door on redirect. However, this testimony can be readily distinguished from the hearsay testimony attempted to be used in Murphy v. State . In Murphy, the hearsay that was offered purported to reveal eyewitness testimony to the killing. No other eyewitness testimony was ever produced in that case. Such is not the case here, where the independent eyewitness testimony was presented to the jury. There is no merit to Walker's second assignment of error.