Opinion ID: 1832312
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 15

Heading: the chancellor erred in denying the appellant's motion to correct the record.

Text: ¶ 61. McNeil argues that the chancellor erred in denying his Motion to Correct the Record filed pursuant to Rule 10(e) of the Mississippi Rules of Appellate Procedure. The portion of the transcript in question, which involves the direct examination of Terry Hester by Hal H.H. McClanahan, III, McNeil's attorney, reads as follows: Q. It's a fact, isn't it, that you were prepared to give this money in the CD's to do this with, because you knew Uncle Helbert, Uncle Nelbert wanted it to be done with his money. Isn't that right? A. He didn't tell me what he wanted to be done with his money. Q. You were prepared(interrupted by Mr. Hester) A. I guess you could say he told me. He left it joint accounts. If you want to really know. He entrusted me to have money, Linda to have the money. Q. So he did leave it to you in trust, didn't he, Terry? A. He. To me, not to nobody else, and Linda. Q. In trust to you and Linda? A. Not, not in a trust now, I'm talking about he left it for us. I didn't say in a trust. Q. But he left it to you trusting that you and Linda would get the money to the heirs, didn't he? A. No. I didn't say that. I'm not sure that he said that, `cause he never did tell me. Q. Let's go back to your deposition. A. Okay. Q. Page one seventy-three. The question is: Well, do you think that's what Neb intended, that it would go to you and Linda or to your heirs? What's you, what's your answer: A. Where is that at? Q. Right here. A. I think he had trust that we would do what that, we'd do whatever is right about anything. Q. Thank you. A. But I wasn't talking about the money right there. Q. You weren't talking about the money? A. I didn't answer that question on that basis. Q. Well let's just go back a second. I'm going to start on page one seventy-two (172). Question: Well, all right, I'm curious. If you claims this money came, that came through the CD is yours and you were to die that night, would, would the heirs of Neb Hester, all of these ten people specified in the will, would they get any of the money that Neb left? A. Would they get any of the money from? Q. I said: Any of the three hundred and ninety thousand. What's your answer then? A. It'd be up to Linda. She's co-owner in it. Q. And then question I asked you: Well, do you think that's what Neb intended, that it would go to you and Linda or to your heirs? And what's your answer? A. I think he had trusted we would do whatever is right about anything. Q. And we're still talking about the three hundred and ninety thousand dollars, weren't we, Terry? A. (No response audible to the court reporter.) Mr. McClanahan: May I have one second, Your Honor? Chancellor: All right. Mr. McClanahan: I tender the witness, Your Honor. (emphasis added). ¶ 62. McNeil argued, in his Motion to Correct the Record, that Terry Hester gave a yes response, and that, had the court reported indicated that she did not hear the response, his attorney would have repeated the question to get the answer on the record. The chancery court held a hearing regarding the motion, at which McClanahan, Terry Hester, and the court reporter, Shirley Wadkins, testified. ¶ 63. McClanahan testified that he distinctly understood Terry Hester to say yes, and that had Terry Hester not given a response to the question, McClanahan would have repeated the question. Terry Hester testified that he did not answer the question because Mr. McClanahan wanted to refer to counsel and cut off his response. Terry Hester also testified that he answered no to the same question in his deposition. ¶ 64. Shirley Wadkins testified that she recalled the testimony in question and that she heard no answer from Terry Hester. She stated that she had listened to a tape of the proceeding both prior to receiving McNeil's Motion to Correct the Record and after receiving the Motion. Wadkins testified that she listened to the tape intently several times and that she did not hear an answer on the tape. She testified that it is unlikely that Terry Hester could have given a response which she did not hear because she sits within two feet of the witness and because Terry's other responses were clear and distinctly made. She stated that the courtroom had four microphones as well as a P/A system and a microphone next to the witness. She explained that, according to her training as a court reporter, her job is to take, not make, the record, and that she can only report what she hears. She stated that the lawyer is responsible for making the record. On cross-examination, Wadkins testified that it is possible, though unlikely, that Terry Hester gave a response which she did not hear. She also stated that she was not facing the witness in the courtroom and that she could not have discerned a non-verbal answer. ¶ 65. The chancellor denied McNeil's motion to correct the transcript. McNeil appeals this order, arguing that the judgment is contrary to the law and the greater weight of the evidence. McNeil has failed to support this assignment of error with authority. It is the duty of an appellant to provide authority in support of an assignment of error. Hoops v. State, 681 So.2d 521, 526 (Miss.1996); Kelly v. State, 553 So.2d 517, 521 (Miss. 1989); Smith v. State, 430 So.2d 406, 407 (Miss.1983); Ramseur v. State, 368 So.2d 842, 844 (Miss.1979). This Court considers assertions of error not supported by citation or authority to be abandoned. Thibodeaux v. State, 652 So.2d 153, 155 (Miss. 1995). Because McNeil has failed to meet the burden of providing authority to support this assignment of error, this issue is procedurally barred. Drennan v. State, 695 So.2d 581, 585-86 (Miss.1997). ¶ 66. Furthermore, the chancellor's determination that the transcript should not be altered was correct. The dispute over whether Terry Hester responded to McClanahan's inquiry was a dispute of fact. This Court will not disturb a chancellor's findings of fact unless the chancellor was manifestly wrong, clearly erroneous, or applied the wrong legal standard. Bank of Mississippi v. Hollingsworth, 609 So.2d 422, 424 (Miss.1992) (citing Smith v. Dorsey, 599 So.2d 529 (Miss.1992); Bowers Window & Door Co. v. Dearman, 549 So.2d 1309 (Miss.1989)). Clearly, there was substantial evidence upon which the chancellor could have based his determination that no response was given.