Opinion ID: 1711352
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Whether the chancellor erred in excluding the testimony of Janna Findley Harris.

Text: ¶ 17. Julie also argues that the chancellor erred by excluding testimony from Janna Findley Harris (Harris). Harris testified at a motion hearing before the court that she saw all of the Mabus family members and that she was a member of the American Association of Marriage and Family Therapists. Julie, however, argues that Harris's testimony was excluded because Harris indicated that she was a marriage counselor and had interviewed Ray. Julie maintains that Ray stated he only visited Harris as a courtesy. Accordingly, Julie contends that the fact that Harris is, among other qualifications, a marriage counselor, has no bearing on her ability to testify at court. In addition, Julie argues that the chancellor relied upon Miss.Code Ann. § 73-54-39 (2000 & Supp.2002) to exclude the testimony and thus overlooked his previous ruling that Ray did not seek marriage counseling. Finally, she argues that Rule 803 and 804 of the Mississippi Rules of Evidence make the testimony admissible and that § 73-54-39 is unconstitutional. ¶ 18. The chancellor stated in the order that he considered the Motion, the testimony of Janna Findley Harris, the handwritten notes taken by Ms. Harris during her office visits with Ray Mabus, portions of Mr. Mabus' deposition, the arguments of counsel both in support of and in opposition to the Motion, and the applicable authorities cited by counsel.... Based on his review of this information, the chancellor ruled that Harris was not permitted to testify. Therefore, the chancellor completed a comprehensive review of many documents and testimony in making his decision. In addition, the chancellor wrote to the parties, dated March 20, 2002, and had no question that Ray was involved in therapy with Harris. The chancellor based his finding on his review of Harris's notes from the sessions and Ray's deposition testimony in which Ray referred to himself as a patient. ¶ 19. Miss.Code Ann. § 73-54-39 states the following: If both parties to a marriage have obtained marriage and family therapy by a licensed marriage and family therapist, the therapist shall not be competent to testify in an alimony, custody or divorce action concerning information acquired in the course of the therapeutic relationship. (emphasis added). As to Julie's assertion that the chancellor overlooked his previous ruling that Ray had not sought counseling, the record reflects that the chancellor did not rule on that issue. There had been a prior hearing before the chancellor concerning the issue of privilege. The transcript testimony quoted by Julie in her brief relates to the issue of privilege and a motion for a protective order, not Harris's competence to testify pursuant to § 73-54-39. ¶ 20. As to the constitutionality of § 73-54-39, the issue was not raised for the chancellor to consider. [T]his Court has also consistently held that errors raised for the first time on appeal will not be considered, especially where constitutional questions are concerned. Ellis, 651 So.2d at 1072 (citations omitted). Accordingly, this issue is barred from review. Notwithstanding the procedural bar, this issue still fails. Julie claims that the rules of evidence supercede any statute concerning court procedure. In effect, Julie claims that the chancellor's ruling disregards M.R.E. 803 and 804, which deal with hearsay exceptions. Here, the statute states that a licensed marriage and family therapist shall not be competent to testify, whereas the M.R.E. concern the exceptions to the hearsay rule. There is no confusion or conflict between the statute and the rules. ¶ 21. Neither party cites M.R.E 601, which addresses the general rules of competency. There is no family therapist exception under this Rule. What is more, M.R.E. 1103 repeals any evidentiary rules inconsistent with the Rules of Evidence, regardless of whether they are provided in a statute, court decision or court rule. In the context of M.R.E. 601 and the statute, there does appear to be a conflict. However, this Court need not address an issue that is not properly raised by a party. Ellis, 651 So.2d at 1072 (citations omitted). Notwithstanding that the issue was not raised and is procedurally barred, this Court will none the less review the issue to determine if the exclusion of Harris's testimony prejudiced Julie's case. ¶ 22. The heart of Julie's argument is that Harris would have given testimony pertaining to the custody of the children and their alleged preference to live with Julie. In her brief Julie specifically stated that Harris's testimony would establish that (1) the children were bright and intelligent; (2) the eldest child was 14 years old in intelligence even though she was not yet 12 years of age; and (3) the children preferred to live with Julie. At trial, other witnesses testified to these facts. Accordingly, to the extent that there may have been any prejudice to Julie's case, it was harmless. ¶ 23. Two expert witnesses testified during the trial. Dr. Donald Guild (Dr. Guild) was the expert witness for Julie, and Dr. Hiatt was the expert for Ray. Dr. Guild testified that the children were very bright and intelligent and had stronger emotional ties to Julie. When considering the Albright factors, Dr. Guild stated that the sex of the children was significant and the children should be with Julie. Dr. Guild disagreed with Dr. Hiatt's assessment of the children. In his testimony, Dr. Guild suggested that Julie have physical custody of the children, not Ray. Nancy McNamee, another witness called by Julie, testified that the children were upset, i.e. crying and running down a hall in their home, when they learned of a modification to visitation at least six months prior to the hearing before the chancellor. Judy Menist, the children's teacher, stated that the children were intelligent. Julie had a loving relationship with them. ¶ 24. Dr. Hiatt testified that the children were bright and intelligent. In making his evaluation, he also considered the fact that the eldest child expressed her desire to live with Julie. Ultimately, however, Dr. Hiatt recommended that Ray be given custody of the children. The chancellor had an opportunity to consider all the testimony from various witnesses and the differing recommendations for custody by the experts. The testimony by these witnesses contains the same information that Harris was to have given the chancellor. Even though Harris was prohibited from testifying in the case, her testimony would have been redundant to the testimony given by other witnesses. This issue is without merit.