Opinion ID: 1903773
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the trial court erred in allowing testimony of attempted drug transactions with persons other than mcdowell prior to mcdowell's alleged transaction.

Text: ¶ 15. McDowell's next assignment of error is somewhat nebulous. He appears to object on hearsay grounds to Lessner's direct testimony regarding attempted drug transactions with the individuals in the brown Cadillac which Lessner followed to the Dash 6 convenience store. The State bluntly states that it has no clue what the Appellant's hearsay-rule argument is about, and notes that McDowell initially objected to this testimony on relevance grounds rather than hearsay. Lessner's testimony at issue appears to be the following: [BY MR. SCHMIDT] Q. Why don't you tell us a little bit about when you went out on the street there in this area of town. Describe the events which took place, please. [BY LESSNER] A. Well, I was onin the area ofI believe it was Washington, and I was driving in the area just looking. A normal procedure would be that if somebody would want to do a deal with me, they would flag me down. But this particular case, I stopped in the middle of the roadway and was trying to have a conversation with a gentleman sitting in a front yard when a brown Cadillac pulled up in between us and actually intervened in the conversation. While the brown Cadillac was there, I spoke to the driver. MR. BERRY: Excuse me. I'll have to interpose another objection. We've covered this on a motion on limine. MR. SCHMIDT: I believe it was overruled, Judge. THE COURT: Overruled. MR. BERRY: I want to interpose an objection anyway as hearsay. It's outside the hearing of my client, and he has no knowledge of it. THE COURT: It's overruled. MR. BERRY: Yes, sir. BY MR. SCHMIDT: Q. Tell us what happened, where you went with this Cadillac; what happened next? A. I spoke to the driver of the Cadillac, and then the Cadillac told me to Follow me. They backed up, turned around, and then he went down to a convenience store called the Dash 6. They pulled in there; I pulled in there. Four individuals got out of the vehicle. I asked them for a 20. A 20 is a common street name for $20 worth of crack cocaine. Then one of the gentlemen told me to make the block, which iswhich is pretty common if they don't have it on them and `they'll have to go get some real quick, or if they try to conceal MR. BERRY: We object to that, if the Court please, pretty common. THE COURT: Overruled. ¶ 11. The Mississippi Rules of Evidence define hearsay as 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. M.R.E. 801(c). As the above passage makes clear, the State offered no statements made by the persons in the brown Cadillac to prove the truth of any matter asserted, and McDowell fails to explain his basis for concluding that any of those statements were hearsay. Statements such as Follow me and Make a block and come back cannot prove anything other than the fact that the statement was made, and they are perfectly admissible for that purpose. See M.R.E. 801 cmt. (If the significance of a statement is simply that it was made and there is no issue about the truth of the matter asserted, then, the statement is not hearsay). This issue is without merit. ¶ 12. McDowell's reply brief also, in a roundabout way, suggests that Lessner's testimony regarding the Cadillac fails the balancing test of Rule 403. In a motion in limine prior to the second trial, McDowell attempted to exclude discussion of the Cadillac stating that [i]t was brought out that there was a brown Cadillac that he concentrated on when he first got there, and the occupants. But it played no part in this case, and we feel like that shouldn't be allowed to creep into our testimony. The State replied that the testimony was an observation made by the officer which indicates his awareness of his surroundings, and the trial court denied McDowell's motion. ¶ 13. The denial of a motion in limine, like all evidentiary rulings, is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Agnew v. State, 783 So.2d 699, 704 (Miss.2001). The State argues that Lessner's testimony was probative in that it explained how he came to make contact with Laneaux and McDowell, and that it is permitted to present the jury with a rational and coherent account of events surrounding the crime, so as to prevent confusion. Against this probative value, McDowell offers no basis for finding substantial prejudice other than his claim that the testimony allowed the jury to infer the existence of a drug ring of which Laneaux and McDowell were members. This conclusory statement is unsupported by the trial record, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying McDowell's motion to exclude the testimony regarding the Cadillac.