Opinion ID: 1093089
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Townsend

Text: Summarized, the context is this: Through Henry Leon Nixon, the prosecution had placed before the jury statements made by Nixon, Sr. that Ponthieux had arranged and paid for the murder. [5] Ponthieux sought to rebut this testimony by calling Townsend to establish that on another occasion much later in time  and long after the object of the conspiracy had been consummated, [6] Nixon, Sr., had stated that Ponthieux had no involvement whatsoever in the murder. Ponthieux's defense at trial was that John B. Nixon, Sr., his sons and Gilbert Jimenez had murdered Ponthieux's ex-wife and that he, Ponthieux, had nothing to do with it. He began his defense by calling Nixon, Sr., as a witness. Nixon, Sr., took the stand, claimed his Fifth Amendment privilege, and refused to testify. At this point, Ponthieux' trial counsel, Stephen Beach, III, offered as evidence (without objection) an affidavit signed by Nixon, Sr., on March 24, 1986. [7] In the affidavit, Nixon, Sr., swore that Ponthieux had not hired or paid him to murder his ex-wife and that Ponthieux had nothing to do with the murder. Shortly thereafter, the defense called Townsend. Outside the presence of the jury defense counsel Beach stated that he wished to interrogate Townsend about statements Nixon, Sr., had made on an occasion some five weeks earlier when the latter was interviewed by Townsend and Beach at the Mississippi State Penitentiary at Parchman, Mississippi. The occasion was after Nixon, Sr., had been tried, convicted and sentenced to die  at a time when the conspiracy to murder Virginia Tucker had long since ended. The Circuit Court stated its principal concern was the attorney-client privilege. The District Attorney, however, objected on hearsay grounds, stating that (in his view) the only possible hearsay exception would be as a statement against interest, see Rule 804(b)(3), Miss.R.Ev., following with an explanation why that exception did not apply. The Circuit Court rejected the hearsay objection, noting that the prosecution had already been allowed to proceed under the co-conspirator's exception, and stating I think it is highly unfair for the defendant not [to] be allowed to put on any hearsay statements that he may be able to put on from reliable sources that would perhaps serve to impeach the hearsay statements that we have already heard made supposedly from Mr. Nixon. I am going to let Mr. Townsend testify. The Court then got into a colloquy with Townsend and held that the attorney-client privilege did not preclude his testimony. Townsend testified that approximately five weeks before Ponthieux's trial Nixon, Sr., told him (in Beach's presence) that he had known Virginia for about two years before the murder and that they were having an affair. Townsend said that Nixon, Sr., also said that Virginia had given him about $3,000.00 in the fall of 1984 and that he had called Henry Leon in Texas to see about buying some marijuana. He said that they went to the Tuckers' house to commit a staged burglary. Henry Leon and Jimenez denied that Nixon, Sr., called them to Utica to participate in a staged burglary so that they could get money with which to buy drugs in Texas. Nixon, Sr., went on to describe intimate details about Virginia and her family. He said she came from a large family and he knew her birth date and said she was very passionate. He described a tattoo, a scar and Virginia's small toenails. Last, he said that things did not go as planned on the morning of January 22, 1985, and that he got mad and killed Virginia. The testimony at issue in the present assignment of error came on cross-examination. Townsend admitted over defense objections that what has just been related was but one of four stories that Nixon, Sr., had told him prior to his trial. Nixon, Sr.'s first story had been that he had an alibi. The next story, which Nixon repeated more than once, was that Ponthieux had paid him. Nixon, Sr.'s third story was that he and Virginia were lovers and that they staged the burglary so that Virginia could commit insurance fraud. The fourth story was the one just mentioned, that the staged burglary was for money with which to buy drugs. Nixon, Sr., repeated the staged burglary stories approximately ten or fifteen times. On appeal, Ponthieux' objection is predicated on the hearsay rules found in Rules 801 and 802. At trial, however, his objection was that the prosecution was getting into matters beyond the scope of direct examination, that is, beyond the interview where he, Beach, and Townsend were present with Nixon. Though inartfully worded, the objection seems to have been that the attorney-client privilege would preclude this other hearsay testimony. We need to be clear about what is being challenged. Townsend was allowed on cross-examination to give testimony that Nixon, Sr., had told four stories: (1) an alibi, (2) that Ponthieux had paid him, (3) the staged burglary so that Virginia could commit insurance fraud, and (4) the staged burglary for money with which to buy drugs. In each instance, the story Townsend testified Nixon, Sr., had told him was garden variety hearsay. It was testimony other than that of the declarant [Nixon, Sr.] to prove the truth of the matter asserted, that is, that Nixon, Sr., had told four separate and conflicting stories of what had happened. Assuming arguendo, that Nixon, Sr., was unavailable in the sense that he had claimed his Fifth Amendment privilege, see Rule 804(a)(1), what he told Townsend does not automatically become admissible. Rather, only if one of the exceptions within Rule 804(b) may be found to fit may Townsend be allowed to testify what Nixon, Sr., told him. Only one is close in point, the statement against interest within Rule 804(b)(3). But careful reflection upon the four stories makes clear that they were intended to serve, not prejudice, Nixon's interests. More fundamentally, we must not forget that Ponthieux is the person on trial here, not John B. Nixon, Sr. We hold that the testimony elicited through Townsend of Nixon, Sr.'s four stories, particularly the one in which he stated that Ponthieux hired him to kill Virginia, was inadmissible hearsay. What makes this question so difficult is that Ponthieux, over the prosecution's hearsay objection, was allowed to offer equally blatant hearsay testimony to the effect that five weeks earlier Nixon had made extensive statements which exonerated Ponthieux. The prosecution argues that defendant thus opened the door. The Circuit Court had ruled that, if Ponthieux called Townsend to offer hearsay statements made by Nixon which exonerated Ponthieux, Townsend could be cross-examined about other contradictory statements made by Nixon, Sr. The Rules of Evidence do not address this problem. We faced a version of it in Murphy v. State, 453 So.2d 1290 (Miss. 1984), also a capital murder case. In Murphy, the prosecution sat idly by while the defense on cross-examination elicited hearsay testimony from a witness (as distinguished from the case at bar, where the prosecution made a proper and timely and correct objection, only to have it overruled). Then on redirect the prosecuting attorney in Murphy, over defense objection, elicited further hearsay testimony, to the effect that another person had told the witness that the defendant had committed the murder. This Court reversed the conviction, noting: The State cannot sit silent while the defense elicits hearsay and then seek to solicit hearsay in response over the objection of the defense, based upon the State's initial failure to object... . To allow this is tantamount to allowing two wrongs in hope of arriving at a right. Murphy, 453 So.2d at 1294. In reaching its decision this Court noted: [Y]ou simply cannot open the door to hearsay. Hearsay is incompetent evidence. You may open the door for collateral, irrelevant, or otherwise damaging evidence to come in on cross-examination, [citations omitted], but Mississippi recognizes no rule of law that allows double hearsay to be brought in through this open door. Murphy, 453 So.2d at 1294. The Circuit Court erred when it overruled the prosecution's hearsay objection to Townsend's testimony on direct examination. It erred similarly when it overruled Ponthieux's objections to Townsend's testimony on cross-examination. There may be a place for makeup calls on the football field, but such are wholly out of place in a court of law where the defendant is on trial for his life. See Gray v. Mississippi, 481 U.S. 648, 107 S.Ct. 2045, 95 L.Ed.2d 622 (1987).