Opinion ID: 1606009
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Whether the Trial Court Erred in Admitting Hearsay in the Form of Conversations between Pigg and Hancock.

Text: ¶ 40. Young also avers that throughout Pigg's examination, Pigg referred to conversations between herself and Hancock which were hearsay. Young further argues that these statements were irrelevant, unfairly prejudicial, confusing, and misleading. Dr. Guild notes that Young failed to identify any particular statements. Dr. Guild also argues that Young elicited hearsay statements similar to those complained of when she testified about her conversations with Hancock. Dr. Guild further argues the conversations fit within hearsay exceptions because they went to Hancock's state of mind. ¶ 41. Young broadly states that Pigg's testimony constituted hearsay, but failed to provide this Court with any reference to that testimony. Without support from the record, this Court is not required to rule upon the merits of Young's argument. See Jordan v. State, 995 So.2d 94, 110 (Miss. 2008) (citing Miss. R.App. P. 28(a)(6) (stating [t]he argument shall contain the contentions of the appellant with respect to the issues presented, and the reasons for those contentions, with citations to the authorities, statutes, and parts of the record relied upon.)). Therefore, we need not decide this issue.