Opinion ID: 1652601
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: whether the trial court erred in overruling the appellant's objection to hearsay testimony.

Text: ¶ 6. Neal argues that the trial court erred in overruling his objection to a hearsay statement. Lt. Little testified that, while he was on patrol, a car pulled up beside him. A young lady inside the car was screaming and a young male yelled, Hey somebody got shot or somebody got killed. The statement was offered to show the basis for Lt. Little's subsequent actions in his investigation, and not offered to prove the truth of the matter. See M.R.E. 801(c). No error is committed where the trial court overrules a hearsay objection when the statement is not used to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Martin v. State, 609 So.2d 435, 439 (Miss.1992). The statement is also admissible under M.R.E. 803(1) as a present sense impression or M.R.E. 803(2) as an excited utterance. See Clark v. State, 693 So.2d 927, 932 (Miss.1997); Knight v. State, 601 So.2d 403, 406 (Miss.1992). ¶ 7. This assignment of error is without merit.