Opinion ID: 1852505
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: whether the trial court erred in allowing testimony regarding complaints of alleged acts or omissions of belmont homes.

Text: ¶ 31. Belmont Homes cites as error the trial court's admitting testimony regarding certain complaints received by the entity prior to Stewart's accident. Donnie Epps, who was the dispatcher over trucking and service at Belmont Homes at the time of the accident, testified that he had received no complaints regarding mobile homes leaving the highway but had received complaints of homes slinging gravel. Belmont Homes asserts that this testimony was irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial and, thus, should have been excluded pursuant to Rules 402 and 403 of the Mississippi Rules of Evidence. ¶ 32. There is simply no merit to this argument. Testimony regarding complaints of gravel being slung by the mobile homes is circumstantial evidence that the homes left the paved highway on occasion. The evidence is relevant. Further, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the probative value of the evidence outweighed its prejudicial effect. At worst this testimony may have amounted to inadmissible hearsay. However, no objection was made at trial on such grounds. ¶ 33. Even if the trial court's admission of this evidence was error, it was harmless error. As this Court has stated: No trial is free of error; however to require reversal the error must be of such magnitude as to leave no doubt that the appellant was unduly prejudiced. Davis v. Singing River Elec. Power Ass'n, 501 So.2d 1128, 1131 (Miss. 1987); Parmes v. Illinois Cent. Gulf R.R., 440 So.2d 261, 268 (Miss.1983). Where error involves the admission or exclusion of evidence, we will not reverse unless the error adversely affects a substantial right of a party. In re Estate of Mask, 703 So.2d 852, 859 (Miss.1997); Terrain Enters., Inc. v. Mockbee, 654 So.2d 1122, 1131 (Miss. 1995). This Court has held that [t]he standard of review regarding admission [or exclusion] of evidence is abuse of discretion. Thompson Mach. Commerce Corp. v. Wallace, 687 So.2d 149, 152 (Miss.1997). Fielder v. Magnolia Beverage Co., 757 So.2d 925, 928 (Miss.1999). ¶ 34. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in its ruling on this matter. We find no merit to this assignment of error.