Opinion ID: 1920844
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Was the State erroneously allowed to bolster its case with hearsay testimony?

Text: ¶ 7. In the presence of Officers Catchings and Williams, Smith identified Mixon as the individual who had taken his truck. Officer Catchings later advised Detective Steven Wansley of Smith's identification of Mixon. Following Officer Catchings's testimony at trial, Detective Wansley testified that Officer Catchings advised him of Smith's identification of Mixon. ¶ 8. Mixon argues that, over his objection, Detective Wansley was improperly permitted to testify that Officer Catchings had told him that Smith identified Mixon as the perpetrator. On redirect, the same alleged hearsay was permitted as the circuit judge concluded that such investigative work was not incompetent hearsay and/or because the door had been opened to the hearsay on cross-examination. [1] ¶ 9. Citing Murphy v. State, 453 So.2d 1290, 1294 (Miss.1984), Mixon maintains that you simply cannot `open the door' to hearsay. In Murphy, this Court found that [h]earsay is incompetent evidence. You may open the door for collateral, irrelevant, and otherwise damaging evidence to come in on cross-examination ... but Mississippi recognizes no rule of law that allows double hearsay to be brought in through this open door. Id. (citations omitted). We reaffirm the holding of this Court in Murphy. See also Kolberg v. State, 829 So.2d 29, 77 (Miss.2002). However, the inquiry regarding admissibility does not end there. The Mississippi Rules of Evidence control the admissibility vel non of the alleged double hearsay or, more accurately stated, hearsay included within hearsay. Hearsay included within hearsay is not excluded under the hearsay rule if each part of the combined statements conforms with an exception to the hearsay rule provided in these rules. M.R.E. 805. ¶ 10. Mississippi Rule of Evidence 801(d)(1)(C) provides [a] statement is not hearsay if: [t]he declarant testifies at the trial or hearing and is subject to cross-examination concerning the statement, and the statement is ... one of identification of a person made after perceiving him .... (emphasis added). Here, Smith, the first declarant, was available for cross-examination, and also made an in-court identification of Mixon as the individual who stole his truck. Moreover, the second declarant, Officer Catchings, likewise testified at trial and was also available for and subject to cross-examination. Therefore, the statements regarding Smith's identification were not hearsay. M.R.E. 801(d)(1)(C). These declarations were statements of identification made after perceiving Mixon. Therefore, this Court finds Detective Wansley's testimony that Officer Catchings informed him of Smith's identification of Mixon as the perpetrator was not hearsay and therefore was admissible. ¶ 11. Mixon further argues that such a statement is inadmissible hearsay citing Ratcliff v. State, 308 So.2d 225, 227 (Miss. 1975). Ratcliff did hold that the statements of an informant to investigators were inadmissible hearsay. However, that decision is clearly distinguishable from the case at bar. The linchpin of the Ratcliff decision was that an accused person is entitled to be confronted with and have opportunity to cross-examine witnesses against him. Id. In Ratcliff, the defendant was not given the opportunity to confront or cross-examine the informant-declarant. Conversely, Mixon had the opportunity to cross-examine both Smith and Officer Catchings. See also Stubbs v. State, 878 So.2d 130, 134 (Miss. Ct.App.2004) (distinguishing Ratcliff where the informant-declarant was available for cross-examination). As such, this Court finds that Mixon's reliance on Ratcliff is without merit. Although the circuit judge articulated an improper basis to admit this testimony, the testimony was nonetheless admissible. Therefore, Mixon's right to a fair trial was not prejudiced by the trial court's ruling. This issue is without merit.