Opinion ID: 1105891
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: whether the trial court erred in failing to allow terry to put on testimony and other evidence as alternate theories of her defense.

Text: ¶ 21. The State filed a motion in limine asking the court for an order excluding: 1. Any proof by Terry as to any insurance policy and/or the filing of a claim and the collection of the same as it related to the case. 2. Any proof by Terry of any alleged misappropriation of corporate funds by Friedman separate and distinct from the funds allegedly embezzled by Terry. A hearing was held on this motion and the State announced that the motion was filed to avoid particular statements made by defense counsel at the first trial of this cause which ended in a mistrial. Terry was attempting to use as her defense that Friedman took money from the company. The State argues that instead of trying to prove that she did not steal the money, she was attempting to show that someone else could have taken the money. ¶ 22. Barry Friedman, president of the business, maintained an employee theft insurance policy on which he made a claim and collected $100,000 based on the allegations that Terry embezzled money from the company. Terry proffered evidence, which was refused by the lower court, that Friedman had been seen taking money from the cash drawer from which Terry was accused of embezzling money. This was alleged to have taken place outside the normal course of business during the same period of time she was accused of embezzling money from the company. ¶ 23. At the first trial, Terry's attorney was able to make several statements to the effect that Friedman Steel was in financial trouble, and that Friedman had recently lost $100,000 in the bankruptcy of Security Boat Works. The State claims that this was meant to lead the jury to infer that Friedman had a motive to steal from his own business. Mr. Dyer stated at the motions hearing that these statements were intended for no other purpose than to detract from the real issue in the case, whether Terry embezzled the money, and to attempt a character assassination of Friedman. ¶ 24. The State argues that in the first trial, defense counsel was able to make statements concerning Friedman's collection of an insurance policy, which insured Friedman Steel up to $100,000 against employee theft. Further, the State claims that Terry's attorney was attempting to use this information to show that Friedman fabricated the whole case against Terry because his company was in financial trouble, and he needed the money. ¶ 25. Terry states that the court erred by not allowing evidence that the company was in dire straits financially or that Friedman kept large sums of cash in his desk and in a safe within the walk-in safe at his office. The court also excluded evidence of an affidavit Terry gave to the police after her arrest telling them where large sums of cash were kept at the business and requesting the police to issue a search warrant for Friedman's office to show that he did have the large stores of cash. The court ruled that if Friedman had taken large sums of money, it was not relevant to the case sub judice, but rather it may have been unreported income and a matter for the I.R.S. to investigate. ¶ 26. The trial court granted the motion in limine and stated as follows: THE COURT: The last time against my better judgment I let a lot of this proof in, and I've come to the conclusion I was in error in doing so. I'm going to grant the State's motion to exclude all of this with one possible exception. To begin with, it is not relevant whatsoever that the defendant corporationI mean, that the victim corporation had insurance coverage. Not relevant whatsoever, nor is its financial condition. The claim that Barry Friedman occasionally took money from the cash drawer, again, is not relevant or probative on the issue of whether Kay Terry embezzled funds from the corporation. Even if I assume for the sake of argument that Barry Friedman took cash money from the drawer and failed somehow to account for it in the corporation's books, that's no defense to Kay Terry having embezzled money from the corporation. I'm going to order counsel and the defendant herself, you are to make no statement whatsoever about any insurance policy. There is to be no statement or proof offered regarding the financial condition of the corporation. There is to be no statement or proof offered as to Barry Friedman taking money out of the cash drawer or any statement or proof offered regarding some claim of the misappropriation of corporate funds by Barry Friedman. Now the last time this case was tried, out of my concern that the defendant get a fair trial and believing representations regarding the development of proof that there may have been other persons responsible for the loss, I allowed a lot of this evidence to come in. What it turned out to be was basically accusations made by counsel unsupported by any proof whatsoever, and what I let you do was essentially the same thing that used to be done to rape victims before the laws were changed to prevent defendants from trashing the character of the victim as if that were a defense to rape. The similarities between that type of case and this one are striking. Barry Friedman is not on trial and his character and reputation are not going to be trashed, nor is the financial condition of the corporation.       As to her claims about the override of the computer: To the extent that she claims other employees had access to the computer, to the computer system, then she may be permitted to offer proof that someone other than herself made entries into the computer system. That's a defense that she didn't do it, but all this other stuff is not a defense. That's just an attempt to throw several skunks into the jury box and hope to stink up the situation badly enough that the jury might overlook the facts of the case, and that's not going to happen the second time around. ¶ 27. Judge Bogen did allow defense counsel the opportunity to prepare a written proffer containing a summary of the evidence that he would have offered. Defense counsel submitted his proffer for the record and stated that all of the allegations claimed therein would be substantiated by Al Kossman, Dee Motague and Kay Terry; however, no affidavits from any of the potential witnesses were included as a part of the proffer. The proffer was solely assertions of Terry and her counsel. ¶ 28. In Kennedy v. State, 278 So.2d 404, 406 (Miss.1973), this Court held when an accused is being tried for a serious offense, the jury is entitled to hear any testimony that the appellant might have in the way of an alibi or defense. This Court ruled in Love v. State, 441 So.2d 1353, 1356 (Miss.1983), that litigants in all cases, including defendants in criminal prosecutions, are entitled to assert alternative theories, even inconsistent alternative theories. A criminal defendant is entitled to present his defense to the finder of fact, and it is fundamentally unfair to deny the jury the opportunity to consider the defendant's defense where there is testimony to support the theory. Keys v. State, 635 So.2d 845, 848-49 (Miss.1994). ¶ 29. Terry asserts that it was fundamentally unfair for the court to exclude evidence that another person took the money which she was accused of embezzling, particularly when this was a circumstantial evidence case. Terry cites to the following facts which point to Friedman as having been the person who took the money: 1. eye witness testimony that he took money from the cash drawer not in the regular course of business; 2. he directed employees to alter tickets; 3. his company was having financial problems; 4. he maintained an employee theft insurance policy on which he collected $100,000; 5. he had his wife, instead of his normal CPA, supply the records to the CPA who represented the insurance company, who is also the same CPA who testified against Terry at trial; and 6. Terry knew where Friedman kept large sums of cash and asked the Police Department to investigate that matter, which they refused to do. ¶ 30. Terry claims that it was fundamentally unfair for the court to exclude this evidence when viewed under this Court's holding in Keys. Terry concedes that relevancy and admissibility are largely within the discretion of the trial court, but contends this was an abuse of discretion that merits reversal. Lambert v. State, 462 So.2d 308, 313 (Miss.1984). Terry cites this Court to its earlier holding in Barrett v. State, 253 So.2d 806, 810 (Miss.1971), which was a case involving embezzlement with accusations made based on circumstantial evidence. In that case the Court quoted from the previous case of Thompson v. State, 83 Miss. 287, 289, 35 So. 689, 690 (1904), the words of Judge Truly: It has always been, is now, and we trust ever shall be, the law in criminal cases that, where there are two reasonable hypotheses arising out of and supported by the evidence, it is the duty of the jury to adopt the hypothesis consistent with innocence, even though the hypothesis of guilt be the more probable. Barrett, 253 So.2d at 810. ¶ 31. Terry claims she was denied the opportunity for the jury to adopt her hypothesis because the jury never heard her hypothesis. ¶ 32. This Court adopted a modern doctrine regarding the admissibility of evidence in Minor v. State, 379 So.2d 495 (Miss.1979), with the following: The modern doctrine is extremely liberal in the admission of any circumstances which may throw light upon the matter being investigated, and great latitude must be given the prosecution in the production of its evidence in proof of criminal charges... [W]here the proper determination of a fact depends upon circumstantial evidence, the safe practical rule to follow is that in no cases is evidence to be excluded of facts or circumstances connected with the principal transaction from which an inference can be reasonably drawn as to the truth of a disputed fact. Id. at 497 (quoting 29 Am.Jur.2d Evidence § 266, at 315 (1967)). Terry states that the above is what she was faced with, and she was denied her right to present her defense. ¶ 33. This Court agrees with Terry, with one qualification. All evidence that is proposed by either side to be used to further its theory, hypothesis, or argument, must first comply with the Mississippi Rules of Evidence promulgated by this Court to be effective as of January 1, 1986, along with any subsequent amendments. As stated earlier, the relevancy and admissibility of evidence are largely within the discretion of the trial judge and reversal is proper only where that discretion has been abused. Johnston v. State, 618 So.2d 90, 93 (Miss.1993). The discretion of the trial judge, however, must be exercised within the boundaries of the Mississippi Rules of Evidence. Id.; See Miss. R. Evid. 103(a), 104(a). ¶ 34. First, the State argues that the evidence proffered was irrelevant and would only confuse the jury if admitted. The State draws this Court's attention to Miss. R. Evid. 401 that defines relevant evidence as evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence. Miss. R. Evid. 401. The longstanding rule that Miss. R. Evid. 403 is the filter through which all evidence flows needs no citation. Miss. R. Evid. 403 provides: Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence. Id. ¶ 35. Secondly, the State argues that the proffer by Terry was supported only by her allegations. The written proffer did not contain any affidavits from the witnesses who were alleged to offer testimony that would have substantiated the proffer. The State directs the Court's attention to Gerrard v. State, 619 So.2d 212, 219 (Miss.1993), where it held: [This Court] has on many occasions held that [it] must decide each case by the facts shown in the record, not assertions in the brief, however sincere counsel may be in those assertions. Facts asserted to exist must and ought to be definitely proved and placed before [the Court] by a record, certified by law otherwise, [the Court] cannot know them.... This Court does not act upon innuendo and unsupported representations of fact by defense counsel. The written proffer enumerates what Terry would have testified to if allowed to go into the details of what she says she witnessed, which was Friedman's involvement in the embezzlement for which she was accused. ¶ 36. Because he allowed the inferences to Friedman being responsible for the embezzled money in the first trial, it would seem that Judge Bogen should have allowed the same testimony and evidence as before. This Court finds that the defendant was entitled to present her theory of the case and have the jury determine whether someone else could have taken the money. Any fears of confusion the trial judge may have harbored could have been resolved by giving limiting instructions to the jury. By trying to avoid a second mistrial, he erroneously excluded any evidence of Friedman embezzling the money. ¶ 37. Terry should have been allowed to present evidence that would prove her theories of innocence. Because she was denied this opportunity, we reverse and remand for a new trial. On remand, the trial judge should afford Terry the opportunity to prove her theories of innocence. However, no evidence should be admitted without first traveling through the filter of Miss. R. Evid. 403.