Opinion ID: 1675150
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: was newsom prevented from introducing relevant evidence by way of witness holliman?

Text: When Holliman testified that he had seen Ternoir in fights before, the judge sustained the objection of the prosecution and instructed the jury to disregard the statement. Rules 404 and 405, M.R.E. apply. This testimony concerns Ternoir's character for violence, and was given in the form of specific past acts, because Holliman stated that Ternoir was involved in fights. Holliman offered no opinion or reputation evidence concerning Ternoir's propensity for violence. Therefore, the question before us is whether proof in the form of specific instances of violence on the part of the victim may be introduced at trial by a criminal defendant who alleges self-defense. The general rule is that character evidence may not be admitted to prove action in conformity therewith. Rule 404, M.R.E. However, Rule 404(a)(2) specifically authorizes inquiry by a criminal defendant into a victim's character. This exception enables defendants to prove that the victim was the initial aggressor and that the defendant acted in self-defense. Comment, Rule 404, M.R.E. Once Rule 404 has been satisfied, character evidence in the form of opinion or reputation evidence is admissible without further restriction. Rule 405(a), M.R.E. However, when character evidence passes through Rule 404(a)(2), and is offered in the form of specific instances of conduct, it is admissible only on cross-examination. Rule 405(a). In the instant case, Holliman's testimony was offered on direct examination during Newsom's case in chief. Therefore, it cannot be admitted through Rule 404(a)(2) and 405(a). However, specific instances of conduct in cases where character or the trait of character is an essential element of a charge, claim, or defense ... are admissible whether on cross or direct examination. Rule 405(b). According to Heidel v. State, 587 So.2d 835 (Miss. 1991), past acts are admissible in cases where a defendant alleges self-defense, concluding that the character trait of violence was an essential element of the defense under 405(b). Heidel, 587 So.2d at 843-47. Holliman said that he had seen the victim, Ternoir, in fights before. Since this testimony on direct examination was character evidence in the form of specific past acts, it was admissible under Rule 405(b). Rule 405(b) allows specific instances of conduct to be admitted if its restriction is satisfied, without regard to whether it was first admissible under Rule 404. Rule 405(a) begins, In all cases in which evidence of character or a trait of character of a person is admissible, proof may be made by testimony as to reputation... . Hence, 405(a) is connected to 404; but, since 405(b) has no such qualifying clause, it admits evidence independently of Rule 404, even though the overlap may yield mirrored results. The trial court erred in excluding Holliman's testimony that he had seen Ternoir in fights before. However, we are not required to reverse a case based solely upon the showing of an error in evidentiary ruling. A denial of a substantial right of the defendant must have been affected by the evidentiary ruling; in this case, that right is the accused's right to a fair trial. Ponthieux v. State, 532 So.2d 1239, 1248 (Miss. 1988), Rule 103(a), M.R.E. Since the right to a fair trial, a constitutional right, is involved, reversal is required unless on the whole record, the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Hoover v. State, 552 So.2d 834, 840 (Miss. 1989). On the whole record this error by the trial judge was harmless. Ternoir's violent character was already admitted. Alex Smith, who testified before Holliman did, had already told the jury he knew Ternoir's reputation for cutting people with a knife. Smith testified that on one occasion Ternoir had attempted to cut Newsom. Furthermore, Newsom testified that Ternoir had, on another occasion, cut him beneath the eye, and on yet another occasion, Ternoir attempted to cut him with a knife. With this evidence presented to the jury, the lack of Holliman's testimony that Ternoir had been in fights before would not have added so much to Newsom's case that to exclude Holliman's testimony was reversible error.
Mississippi law allows a lay witness to give an opinion. Rule 701, M.R.E. But such an opinion is admissible only if it is rationally based on the witness' perception and is helpful to a clear understanding of his testimony or of a fact in issue. Rule 701, M.R.E. When it was adopted, Rule 701 was a departure from prior practice, when lay opinions were generally excluded. See Comment, Rule 701, M.R.E. The question before us is whether Holliman had first-hand knowledge or observation of Ternoir's state of sobriety on the night in question, and whether or not Holliman's opinion, if true, would have supported a rational inference that the intoxication had any bearing whatsoever on the claim of self-defense. Secondarily, the court must determine whether the refusal of the trial judge to allow Holliman's opinion testimony on the intoxication of the victim deprived the defendant of any substantial right to a fair trial. Turner v. State, 573 So.2d 1335, 1340 (Miss. 1990). It is apparent from the record that the trial judge excluded references by Holliman concerning Ternoir's state of sobriety, because he concluded that no showing had been made that Holliman was able to give such an opinion. Holliman's opinion would have had to have been based only upon the motions he saw and the voices he heard from across the street. Also, Holliman apparently admitted that he was unable to determine whether Ternoir was intoxicated or not. In fact, at one point, Holliman stated that he did not know whether he saw Ternoir chasing Newsom or Newsom chasing Ternoir. The exclusion of this inconsequential evidence does not affect Newsom's substantial right to a fair trial and does not require reversal of his conviction. The admissibility of evidence rests within the trial court's sound discretion and here there was no abuse. Hall v. State, 611 So.2d 915, 918 (Miss. 1992).
We might infer that Holliman was intimidated by the judge's threats of holding him in contempt, because his statements subsequent to the judge's threat were less assertive and even inconsistent with some of his previous testimony. However, we might also infer that Holliman was stretching the truth beforehand and then retracted his previous testimony in order to cure a misunderstanding. Furthermore, after being told a second time that he could not testify about Ternoir's sobriety, Holliman told the judge that he had already testified as to what he saw and heard. When the trial judge gave the defense attorney another chance to proffer Holliman's testimony, Holliman said that he had already told the court what he witnessed. Furthermore, this assignment is without merit, because what Holliman would have said is nowhere in the record. In fact, the alleged intimidation is not clearly reflected in the record either. Even if we assume that Holliman was, in fact, intimidated, we do not know what testimony, if any, he would have given. We do know that Holliman indicated that he had already told all that he knew. Newsom's appellate brief cites no authority concerning this issue and it is without merit.