Opinion ID: 1109226
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 22

Heading: whether the lower court erred in allowing hearsay

Text: ¶ 61. The Mississippi Rules of Evidence define hearsay as a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted. M.R.E. 801(c). Hearsay is not admissible except as provided by law. M.R.E. 802. Furthermore, this Court has previously stated that if the significance of a statement is simply that it was made and there is no issue about the truth of the matter asserted, then the statement is not hearsay. Mickel v. State, 602 So.2d 1160, 1162 (Miss.1992). ¶ 62. Tanner asserts that the trial court erred by improperly admitting hearsay evidence. Tanner specifically asserts that the following four situations were prejudicial.
¶ 63. The prosecution asked Mrs. Sain on direct examination: Q: Listen to my question. Did she ever tell you or express to you at any time, particularly the weeks and months immediately before her death, did she ever tell you that either or both of those rings had been stolen, missing or otherwise appropriated from her? A: No. ¶ 64. Tanner objected stating it was hearsay, and the trial court subsequently overruled his objection. We disagree with the trial court. The above testimony was hearsay. It was an oral assertion, as defined by M.R.E. 801(a), and was offered into evidence for the truth of the matter asserted. Although this Court finds the question asked by counsel was improper, we conclude such error was harmless and did not prejudice Tanner.
¶ 65. The prosecution asked Detective McCann on direct examination: Q: Did you obtain a description from Mrs. Wood's executor of items that he had reported missing that belonged to her? ¶ 66. The above testimony is not hearsay. The State simply asked whether Detective McCann obtained a description of items from the executor. Therefore, this issue is without merit.
¶ 67. The prosecution asked Detective Winstead on direct examination: Q: As a result of your investigation, your inspection of the scene, and your conversation with the family and friends of Mrs. Wood, did you developdid you develop a motive as the theory of your case, and if so, what was it? A: Robbery. ¶ 68. Tanner objected, stating he is asking for hearsay when he is saying, what your investigation, what others told you. This Court disagrees. The above testimony is not hearsay. Rather, the State simply asked Detective Winstead if he developed a motive and what the motive was. Therefore, this issue is without merit.
¶ 69. The prosecution asked Detective McCann on direct examination: Q: That night, that is, the night y'all first began to treat it as a homicide. Do you know whether Detective McCann spoke with any neighborhood people? A: He did. He spoke with the persons in the neighborhood who were standing out in front of the house and he came back in and he said that something struck him as strange. ¶ 70. When Tanner objected based on hearsay grounds, the trial court stated, try to avoid hearsay. Although it did not per se sustain the objection, the trial court's language implied such. The information received from the testimony above had already been introduced through Detective McCann's testimony of what he said that night. Consequently, Tanner was not prejudiced by the admission of this hearsay. While this Court agrees the above testimony is inadmissible hearsay, we find such error to be harmless.