Opinion ID: 1667146
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Hearsay objections regarding the testimony of Richard Isham

Text: ś 91. Thorson next argues that the trial court erred in excluding, as hearsay, answers to questions during Thorson's testimony regarding threats made by Richard Isham. Thorson argues that during the following testimony, the trial court improperly sustained two objections on hearsay grounds: KOENIG: Prior to your being formally charged with capital murder, was anyone allowed to come in and talk to you other than law enforcement? THORSON: Richard Isham was allowed to come and talk to me in one of the offices on the early morning of March 8th.       KOENIG: Without saying at this point what, if anything, Mr. Isham may have said to you, did Mr. Isham have any influence over your decision to make a statement in this case? THORSON: Yes, ma'am. KOENIG: Why? WARD: Objection, Your Honor. COURT: Sustained. The obvious would be hearsay. The jury will disregard that remark and the question. KOENIG: Did you â Again, without saying what Mr. Isham said, if, in fact, he said anything, did you feel threatened by Mr. Isham's presence? WARD: Objection, Your Honor. COURT: Sustained. Counsel, I've cautioned you. Thorson argues that he was trying to prove what impact, if any, a visit from Richard Isham immediately preceding Mr. Thorson's custodial statement had in convincing Mr. Thorson to provide a custodial statement to the police. However, the following exchange occurred only minutes later: KOENIG: Roger, what did you do as a result of the jailhouse visit by Richard Isham? WARD: Objection, Your Honor. KOENIG: If anything? COURT: That's a pretty broad question, Counsel. I will allow him to answer subject to being stricken and subject to my previous admonition, because this is not a fishing expedition to attempt to get an answer which cannot come in directly. Now, if you want to ask the question again, ask it again. KOENIG: What action, if any, Mr. Thorson, did you take after being held from March 7th to March 9th, as a result of your questioning, interrogation and your jailhouse encounter with Richard Isham? WARD: Again, we object, Your Honor. COURT: I'll let him answer, if he understands the question, what's being asked for. THORSON: Because of the threats on Gloria's two girls. COURT: I sustain the objection that's been made, and the jury will disregard that. That has to come from some form of hearsay. Counsel, I caution you again. KOENIG: We're not asking why. We're asking what did you do, Mr. Thorson. THORSON: I took responsibility for what was said about Gloria McKinney being dead. ś 92. In Peterson v. State, 671 So.2d 647 (Miss.1996), this Court pronounced the standard of review for the admissibility of evidence as follows: Under the Supreme Court's standard of review, the admissibility of evidence rests within the discretion of the trial court. However, this Court must also determine whether the trial court employed the proper legal standards in its fact findings governing evidence admissibility. If in fact the trial court has incorrectly perceived the applicable legal standard in its fact findings, the Court applies a substantially broader standard of review. However, a denial of a substantial right of the defendant must have been affected by the court's evidentiary ruling. Furthermore, the trial court's discretion must be exercised within the scope of the Mississippi Rules of Evidence and reversal will be appropriate only when an abuse of discretion resulting in prejudice to the accused occurs. Peterson, 671 So.2d at 655-56 (internal citations omitted & emphasis added). See also Clemons v. State, 732 So.2d 883, 887-88 (Miss.1999). Thorson argues that had he been allowed to testify, he would have stated that Isham had a coercive influence over him. The trial court's ruling was not prejudicial to Thorson, as it properly sustained the State's hearsay objection. However, as evidenced from the trial transcript, Thorson was able to testify that as a result of a jailhouse visit from Isham, he felt compelled to take responsibility for the death of Gloria McKinney. Therefore, this issue is without merit.