Opinion ID: 1954318
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: did prejudicial error occur when over objection the state's witness, shirlene anderson, was allowed to testify concerning bits and pieces of the alleged sale which she was able to overhear from a hidden transmitter, since she was unable to identify the appellant as one of the parties to the sale?

Text: Anderson and Bethea, agents of the MS Bureau of Narcotics, were some distance away from the alleged transaction receiving signals from the transmitter which was hidden on Agent Connor. Agent Anderson testified that she could not see the alleged transaction but she could hear parts of a conversation between Agent Connor, Holmes, and a third party whose voice she could not identify. The transaction was to have been tape recorded, but the agents did not have the proper size tapes to fit the recorder. Peterson objected to the admission of this testimony on the grounds that it was hearsay, and that the entire conversation was not transmitted, and that Agent Anderson was unable to identify Peterson as a party to the conversation. The State responded that the evidence was part of the res gestae, and the trial judge allowed it to be admitted. Peterson argues that he was prejudiced by the following statement which was admitted at trial through Agent Anderson: Agent Connor was talking and I could hear statements made by her that they had finished negotiating from $175.00 to $225.00 of marijuana for a quarter pound of marijuana and the subject was going back to get the marijuana. Later, I could tell that someone had returned back because the car door opened... . We analyze this assignment under the Mississippi Rules of Evidence which offer the following definitions: RULE 801. DEFINITIONS. The following definitions apply under this article: (a) Statement. A statement is (1) an oral or written assertion or (2) nonverbal conduct of a person, if it is intended by him as an assertion. (b) Declarant. A declarant is a person who makes a statement. (c) Hearsay. Hearsay is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Rule 801, Mississippi Rules of Evidence. If the out-of-court statement made by Agent Connor was offered through Agent Anderson to prove that Agent Connor had in fact just finished negotiating for four ounces of marijuana, then the statement is hearsay. Under Rule 802, Mississippi Rules of Evidence, hearsay evidence is generally inadmissible. However, we find that this hearsay statement was properly admitted since it falls under Rule 803(1) which provides: RULE 803. HEARSAY EXCEPTIONS: AVAILABILITY OF DECLARANT IMMATERIAL. The following are not excluded by the hearsay rule, even though the declarant is available as a witness: (1) Present Sense Impression. A statement describing or explaining an event or condition made while the declarant was perceiving the event or condition or immediately thereafter. Rule 803(1), Mississippi Rules of Evidence. The Comment to Rule 803(1) addresses the State's contention that this evidence is admissible as part of the res gestae. The Comment provides, in part: The present sense impression is not the same thing as the res gestate exception, although the res gestae concept has been used to cover situations where present sense impression would have been appropriate. Houston Contracting Co. v. Atkinson, 251 Miss. 220, 168 So.2d 797 (1964). Rule 803 does not provide for an explicit res gestae exception. The rules, in effect, abandon the elusive concept of res gestae. Rules 803(1), (2), (3), and (4) have elements of the old res gestae exception but they are far more specific and therefore, they surmount much of the justified criticism regarding res gestae. Comment, Rule 803(1), Mississippi Rules of Evidence. To be admissible as a present sense impression the statement must meet the three requirements set out in Rule 803(1): (1) A statement must be made while the event or condition is being perceived by the declarant or immediately thereafter; (2) The declarant must perceive the event or condition; (3) The statement must describe or explain the event or condition. See 4 J. Weinstein, Evidence, Para. 803(1)[01] pages 803-75 through 81 (1987). It appears that Agent Connor was in a position to witness the transaction, and that her statement was made immediately after participating in the negotiation which she had described, therefore, the trial judge did not err in allowing Agent Connor's statement to be admitted through Agent Anderson. There is no merit to this assignment of error. REVERSED AND REMANDED. ROY NOBLE LEE, C.J., HAWKINS and DAN M. LEE, P.JJ., and PRATHER, ROBERTSON, ANDERSON, GRIFFIN and ZUCCARO, JJ., concur.