Opinion ID: 2495848
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Whether the trial court erred in sustaining hearsay objections to the testimony of L.R.'s expert witness, Denease Bishop.

Text: ¶ 44. L.R. argues that she was prejudiced by the trial court's limiting Bishop's expert testimony. L.R. alleges, without explanation, that preventing Bishop from repeating what L.R. had told her was a violation of the expert-witness rules. See Miss. R. Evid. 702, 703. L.R. was not prejudiced by the trial court's sustaining Federation's objections. Even if the trial court had allowed Bishop to testify to the specifics of L.R.'s version of events, it would have been cumulative evidence, as other witnesses (L.R.; Robert Mahaffey, a policeman; John Tisdale, a security expert; Dr. Hiatt; L.R.'s mother; and Morris) testified on the same subject matter. Further, Bishop was allowed to testify that L.R. had made a credible disclosure of rape. We find no merit in L.R.'s argument on this issue.