Opinion ID: 1610587
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 16

Heading: Testimony of Gilbert Jimenez

Text: Nixon maintains Jimenez was improperly allowed to testify to facts learned subsequent to Jimenez's arrest. Those facts included: (1) the name of the bar where Nixon obtained the gun used in the slaying of Mrs. Tucker; (2) the type truck that Mr. Tucker left in after he escaped from Nixon and his confederates on the day of the shooting; (3) the fact that a bullet struck Mr. Tucker behind the ear rather than in the back as Jimenez had previously thought; (4) the name of Joe Ponthieux even though the witness did not initially know his name when they began to plan Mrs. Tucker's murder; (5) the fact that Mr. Nixon came out with money from Joe Ponthieux's house. Initially this Court notes that defense counsel made no objections to the testimony referenced (1), (3), (4), and (5). To the contrary, counsel did object to the statement referenced as (2), and the objection was sustained. The State argues that without objection these points were not preserved for appeal. Miss.R.Evid. 103(a)(1); See Temple v. State, 498 So.2d 379, 381 (Miss. 1986); Baker v. State, 327 So.2d 288, 292 (Miss. 1976) (Contemporaneous objection is necessary to preserve the right to raise an error on appeal). This Court holds that these facts elicited were tangential at best and constituted no more than harmless error. See Miss.Sup. Ct.R. 11. Nixon also cites as error Jimenez's description of a conversation he had with his girlfriend. Nixon argues this testimony was a comment on parole and was a fundamental denial of his rights. These statements, to which no objection was made, can hardly be said to be such a comment on parole as to cause reversible error. Cf. Williams v. State, 445 So.2d 798, 813 (Miss. 1984). Finally, Nixon argues the testimony of Jimenez was flawed because of alleged inconsistencies with prior statements and with testimony of other witnesses. The well-recognized rule that the jury is the sole judge of the credibility of a witness as well as the weight and worth to be afforded his testimony. Kinzey v. State, 498 So.2d 814, 818 (Miss. 1986); Griffin v. State, 495 So.2d 1352, 1354 (Miss. 1986); Gathright v. State, 380 So.2d 1276, 1278 (Miss. 1980).