Opinion ID: 1855351
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: the appellant was denied a fair trial due to the cumulative errors effect made at trial.

Text: ¶ 17. In this last assignment of error, Cross argues that along with the first two errors, there were other errors for which an objection was not lodged. Specifically, a deficient jury instruction regarding the evidence necessary to prove attempted rape and hearsay evidence. ¶ 18. Cross concedes that matters not presented at trial cannot be presented here on appeal and that hearsay evidence not objected to may be considered by the jury. However, Cross argues that this Court has held that although an individual error may not necessarily, by itself, be grounds for reversal, errors as a whole may result in the accused being denied a fair trial. Cross contends that all these errors combined denied him a fair trial and prays for a reversal of his conviction due to the cumulative effects of the errors made by the trial court. ¶ 19. In Hansen v. State , this Court stated It is elementary that a party seeking reversal of the judgment of a trial court must present this Court with a record adequate to show that an error of reversible proportions has been committed and that the point has been procedurally preserved. Hansen v. State, 592 So.2d 114, 127 (Miss.1991),( quoting Queen v. Queen, 551 So.2d 197, 199 (Miss.1989), see also, Smith v. State, 724 So.2d 280, 309 (Miss. 1998)). ¶ 20. In the instant case, Cross offered no objection to jury instruction S-4 nor was there any other mention of hearsay evidence other than the above assignment of error. In fact, defense counsel stated on the record that there was no objection to jury instruction S-4. Further, during Willie Porter's testimony, there was no objection on hearsay grounds. For these reasons, this issue has not been properly preserved for review by this Court.