Opinion ID: 2537633
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Whether the trial court erred in overruling hearsay objections concerning Fulgham's purported desire to shoot a dog.

Text: ¶ 31. Fulgham argues that the trial court erred in allowing the jury to hear testimony relating to her alleged statement that she wanted to shoot a stray dog and her requests for a gun to shoot it. Over Fulgham's hearsay objection, Davis testified that about a month prior to Joey's death, Fulgham had complained about a stray dog and had asked Davis for her grandmother's gun to shoot it. Fulgham further objected when the State asked Davis how many times Fulgham had requested the gun, and Davis responded three times. Fulgham argues that these statements constituted inadmissible hearsay, and if admissible, that their probative value was outweighed by their prejudicial effect. ¶ 32. Under Mississippi Rule of Evidence 801, 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. [35] Fulgham's statement that she wanted to shoot a dog is not hearsay because it was not offered for the truth of the matter asserted. [36] Additionally, Fulgham's statements that she wanted a gun are admissible as admissions by a party opponent under Mississippi Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(A). This issue has no merit.