Opinion ID: 1872503
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: EXCLUSION OF McDAVID'S VERSION OF CONVERSATION

Text: As noted, McDavid did not deny a sale of rock cocaine took place. He acknowledged that he was right there on the scene, as an innocent spectator, however. Had McDavid attempted to describe another sale, at another time or place, such evidence would have been irrelevant. According to his testimony, however, his was the identical transaction about which Harris testified, but the seller was not him. It was Kitty Cat. Therefore, anything he testified he saw and heard was competent, first-hand testimony. Any conversations between Harris and the elusive Kitty Cat, or between Jones, the confidential informant, and Kitty Cat at that time and place were not hearsay but a first-hand account by an eyewitness of what he saw and heard. It was error for the court to exclude McDavid's testimony as to what he heard these individuals say during this version of the transaction there at the scene. Dutton v. Evans, 400 U.S. 74, 91 S.Ct. 210, 27 L.Ed.2d 213 (1970); United States v. Cintolo, 818 F.2d 980 (1st Cir.1987); United States v. Payden, 622 F. Supp. 915 (D.C.N.Y. 1985); Graves v. State, 492 So.2d 562 (Miss. 1986); West v. State, 485 So.2d 681 (Miss. 1985).