Opinion ID: 1696930
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Photographic Lineup, Testimony of Lacarus Oliver, and ATF Documents

Text: ¶ 67. Jordan asserts that the photographic lineup was highly prejudicial and requires reversal. In making his argument, Jordan asserts that the Defendant was the only person wearing civilian clothing, including a white t-shirt, and not wearing an orange jumpsuit or a black and white jumpsuit, and was the only one where you could see that he had on a plain white t-shirt. Of the six individuals pictured in the photographic lineup, one is clearly wearing a black and white jumpsuit and one is wearing an orange jumpsuit. The other four individuals pictured appear to be wearing civilian clothing. Therefore, we find this argument without merit. ¶ 68. Jordan further asserts that it was rank hearsay testimony by Oliver as to who identified Montrell Jordan, namely, Joey Netherland and Carlton Brown, when both of these witnesses were available to testify. A statement concerning an identification of someone after perceiving them is not hearsay if the declarant is subject to cross-examination. Culp v. State, 933 So.2d 264, 276 (Miss.2005); see also Miss. R. Evid. 801(d)(1)(C). In this case, Jordan's trial counsel objected that it was hearsay for Oliver to testify that he showed the photographic lineup to both Netherland and Brown, and that both identified Jordan as the shooter. The trial court properly overruled this objection. Both Netherland and Brown testified at trial and were subject to cross-examination regarding this identification procedure. Accordingly, we find this issue without merit. ¶ 69. Next, Jordan argues that it was inadmissible testimony for Oliver to give his opinion that the Defendant was `guilty' based on his investigation. Jordan's appellate counsel cites to three different pages in the record to support this contention. However, the record reveals that no such testimony was ever given by Oliver. Therefore, we find this issue to be without merit. ¶ 70. Lastly, Jordan argues that the trial court erred in admitting the ATF [2] Gun Trace and Trace Return documents into evidence. Jordan asserts that the documents were not properly authenticated under Mississippi Rule of Evidence 901. Miss. R. Evid. 901. Defense counsel did not object to the authentication procedure with regard to the ATF Gun Trace, which was admitted into evidence absent objection; therefore, Jordan is procedurally barred from raising this issue on appeal. Rubenstein v. State, 941 So.2d 735, 755 (Miss.2006). Defense counsel did, however, make a contemporaneous objection to the admission of the Trace Return, objecting on authentication grounds. ¶ 71. It is well-established that this Court reviews admission of evidence for an abuse of discretion. Sewell v. State, 721 So.2d 129, 138 (Miss.1998) (citations omitted). Furthermore, [e]videntiary rulings are affirmed unless they affect a substantial right of the complaining party. Sewell, 721 So.2d at 138 (citations omitted). Mississippi Rule of Evidence 901 requires that a document be authenticated before it is admitted, which is satisfied when there is evidence sufficient to support a finding that the document is what the proponent claims it is. Miss. R. Evid. 901. ¶ 72. In the instant case, Oliver's testimony revealed that he was familiar with the document, and that it was the document he received from the ATF in response to his ATF gun trace request for Montrell Jordan. This testimony, paired with the information on the face of the document, was evidence sufficient to support a finding that the document was what the prosecution claimed. Accordingly, we find that the trial judge did not abuse her discretion by admitting the Trace Return into evidence.