Opinion ID: 1093220
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Was the Identification Testimony Improper Bolstering?

Text: Jimpson claims that the identification testimony of Mae Kirkland and Woodrow Rogers is at least partially based on their identification of him in the lineup at issue here. As such, he claims that this identification is hearsay and represents improper bolstering of their credibility under traditional Mississippi case law. In Henry v. State, 209 So.2d 614 (Miss. 1968), this Court noted the general rule that bolstering the credibility of a witness was not allowed, Id. at 617, but then noted that corroborating testimony is allowed for collateral issues. Id. In the case at bar, testimony was used not to bolster the credibility of the witnesses, but rather to identify the defendant. Thus, the Henry rule applies. The bolstering rule was later modified greatly in Fells v. State, 345 So.2d 618 (Miss. 1977). This Court recognized the benefit of allowing prior identification as independent, substantive evidence of identity by a witness who is available at trial for cross-examination ... Id. at 621. This rule was recently codified in the Mississippi Rules of Evidence as a form of non-hearsay: A statement is not hearsay if [t]he declarant testifies at the trial or hearing and is subject to cross-examination concerning the statement, and the statement is one of identification of a person made after perceiving him. Rule 801(d)(1)(C). This rule was recently cited and followed by the Court in Livingston v. State, 519 So.2d 1218, 1221 (Miss. 1988). The first assignment of error fails on both grounds.