Opinion ID: 1722768
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the appellant's constitutional rights to confront the witnesses against him was violated by the admission of highly prejudicial hearsay evidence.

Text: Larry Westbrook, the victim and prosecuting witness, testified on cross-examination and redirect examination: CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. WILKINS: Q. And you called the District Attorney's office and told them you wanted to drop the case. A. Right. Q. Do you remember when that would have been? A. No, I don't. Q. Do you know who you talked to? A. No, I don't. Q. Did you want to testify here today? A. No. Q. Who compelled you to testify? A. Well, the District Attorney. BY MR. WILKINS: That's all we have, Your Honor. REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. PETERS: Q. Larry, you didn't want to testify. Where does you mother live? A. On Grandview Circle. Q. How close does she live to the Stringer's? A. Pretty close to the old neighborhood. Q. Did you tell me you were afraid for your mother? A. Yes  BY MR. WILKINS: Your Honor, that is not proper. BY THE COURT: Overruled. Q. What about you? Are you afraid for yourself? A. Yes. Q. Did you tell me that that's why you didn't want to testify? A. Right. Q. Has anyone come looking for your address with a pistol? BY MR. WILKINS: Your Honor, I object. That's not proper and I move for a mistrial. BY THE COURT: Overruled. Q. Is that right, Larry? A. I had heard that. BY MR. WILKINS: Your Honor  Q. Is that why you told me you didn't want to testify? BY MR. WILKINS: Your Honor  BY THE COURT: I'm not admitting it for the truthfulness of  of the question or the answer, Mr. Wilkins, but I believe you opened this up. BY MR. WILKINS: Your Honor, the question called for a hearsay response. BY THE COURT: And I'm not admitting it for the truthfulness of the statement. Q. Is that why you told me you didn't want to testify? A. Yes. The appellant complains that the examination by the State constituted prejudicial hearsay testimony. That examination was in response to the showing by appellant that Westbrook did not wish to testify and was an explanation of Westbrook's answers. [3] Westbrook did not testify as to who came looking for him with a gun and did not say that appellant was the person who threatened him. See McGowan v. State, 375 So.2d 987 (Miss. 1979) and Ratcliff v. State, 308 So.2d 225 (Miss. 1975). The lower court admitted the testimony not to show the truth of the matter testified about, but to show the state of mind of the witness and what he believed. That belief was the reason why he did not wish to testify. We are of the opinion that the testimony did not violate the Sixth Amendment right of appellant to confrontation and that it was not a showing by the State of the appellant's bad character. The judgment of the lower court is affirmed. AFFIRMED. PATTERSON, C.J., WALKER, P.J., and HAWKINS, DAN M. LEE, PRATHER, ROBERTSON, SULLIVAN and ANDERSON, JJ., concur.