Opinion ID: 1695207
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: did the court improperly allow police detective perry ashley to characterize a conversation he heard over a body transmitter instead of requiring him to testify only as to what was actually said?

Text: The defendants assign as error Detective Ashley's interpretation of a comment heard over the body transmitter by Troy during the purchase of the cocaine. The defendants allege that a proper predicate was not laid and that the testimony was extremely prejudicial. The State alleges that the defendants' issue on appeal regarding an inadequate predicate is a new issue not preserved at trial for appeal and is thus procedurally barred. We agree. The following is the conversation complained of by the defendants: ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY RUSHING: When you heard the voice of Lucille Craft, do you recall the conversation between Mr. Magee and Miss Craft? BY PERRY ASHLEY: Somewhere in the conversation he advised her that he was sorry to disturb her, that he had some `change he wanted to burn up'. Q: And when you say `change to burn up,' do you know what that particular phrase means? BY MR. OTT: I object to his interpretation of the language that he heard. BY THE COURT: Well, I'll overrule the objection and let him testify. Of course, you can cross-examine him, that's fine. Q: You may proceed, Mr. Ashley. A: That he wanted to spend his money he had on some more cocaine. The State alleges that Mr. Ott's objection on the grounds of `interpretation' did not amount to a preservation for appeal upon the grounds of inadequate predicate. However, the basis for the Court in its affirmance on this issue is the procedural bar. As this Court stated in Holland v. State, 587 So.2d 848, 868, n. 18 (Miss. 1991): Holland is procedurally barred from raising these issues because he either cites support for his contention which is different from the support he cited at the trial level or he failed to raise the issue at trial. A trial judge can not be put in error on a matter which was not presented to him for decision. Pruett v. Thigpen, 665 F. Supp. 1254, 1262 (N.D.Miss. 1986); see Read v. State, 430 So.2d 832, 838 (Miss. 1983). The defendants raise the grounds of improper predicate for the first time on appeal. Therefore, the Court finds that the defendants' issue was waived and is not properly before the Court. Accordingly, we affirm the trial judge on his ruling upon this issue.