Opinion ID: 1748627
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: was it error to exclude testimony of a defense witness about uncommunicated threats by hughes against gates?

Text: Gates offered the witness Lena Hopper to testify that Hughes had bragged to her about being the father of a child by the wife of Gates and that Hughes had told her that if Gates said anything to him about it he would kill him. The testimony was excluded. Gates admits that the statements were not communicated to him before he shot Hughes; therefore, they clearly were not relevant to the manslaughter issue. Out of court statements offered for the purpose of proving the truth of the matter asserted are hearsay and inadmissible. Fuselier v. State, 468 So.2d 45, 52 (Miss. 1985). Uncommunicated threats made by the victim may be admissible, if otherwise competent, in murder cases where the defense is self-defense and there is an issue as to who was the aggressor, since the threats are relevant to the victim's state of mind. Washington v. State, 307 So.2d 430 (Miss. 1975); Muse v. State, 158 Miss. 449, 130 So. 693 (1930); Beauchamp v. State, 128 Miss. 523, 91 So. 202, 203, 204 (1922); Mott v. State, 123 Miss. 729, 86 So. 514 (1920); Clark v. State, 123 Miss. 147, 85 So. 188 (1920); Leverett v. State, 112 Miss. 394, 73 So. 273 (1916); Echols v. State, 99 Miss. 683, 55 So. 485 (1911). The question is essentially one of relevancy. If the uncommunicated threat is relevant, the attendant circumstances concerning the threat are also relevant and admissible to show the nature, cause, and depth of the deceased's enmity toward the appellant. Clark, 123 Miss. at 156, 85 So. at 190. However, when the evidence deals solely with the relationship between deceased and appellant's wife, no previous difficulties between the participants nor threats, the evidence is not relevant to the victim's state of mind concerning the self-defense claim. Pearson v. State, 254 Miss. 275, 179 So.2d 792 (1965). In Brown v. State, 88 Miss. 166, 40 So. 737 (1920), the Court laid down the following rule concerning the admissibility of uncommunicated threats: [W]herever there is doubt, confusion, dispute, or conflict as to the origin of the difficulty, or as to who was the aggressor in the difficulty which resulted in the death, and when such fact is the pivotal one in the case, testimony of uncommunicated threats, and the nature and character of previous difficulties, wantonly provoked by the deceased, is always admissible, provided the testimony shows some overt act on the part of the deceased at the time of the fatal encounter. 88 Miss. at 171, 40 So. at 737. See also Hendrix v. State, 172 Miss. 589, 161 So. 151 (1935). This is not a case where the excluded testimony concerns previous harassments, threats or assaults personally directed toward Gates by Hughes, nor prior attempts by Gates to get help to stop the difficulties between he and Hughes. Such testimony would be admissible. Jackson v. State, 426 So.2d 405 (Miss. 1983); Bell v. State, 443 So.2d 16 (Miss. 1983); Lee v. State, 160 Miss. 618, 134 So. 185 (1931). When testimony is excluded at trial, a record must be made of the proffered testimony in order to preserve the point for appeal. Johnson v. State, 416 So.2d 679, 681 (Miss. 1982). Lena Hopper was asked whether Hughes had ever said anything to her about being the father of the baby Nazareth's wife, Shirley, was going to have. The state's objection was sustained. A record was made of this testimony with Hopper testifying that Hughes had bragged about being the father of the baby but she did not know whether Gates knew about the bragging. At this point in the trial, this testimony was clearly inadmissible. Pearson, supra . With the jury back in, Hopper was asked if she had ever heard Hughes make a threat against Nazareth. The state's objection was again sustained. No record was made of this proffered testimony. Even if a record had been made and Hopper had testified as to uncommunicated threats, the testimony would have been inadmissible because, at this point in the trial, there was no doubt as to who was the aggressor and there was no evidence of an overt act on the part of Hughes at the time of the shooting. Brown, supra. After Gates testified concerning the alleged move, Hopper was recalled. She was again asked whether Hughes had ever told her that Gates' wife was going to have his baby. The state's objection was sustained. No record was made. Testimony concerning the relationship between Hughes and Gates' wife would have been admissible had there been testimony of uncommunicated threats made by Hughes toward Gates. The testimony of Hopper concerning the alleged uncommunicated threats was admissible after Gates' testimony since then there was some evidence of an overt act on the part of Hughes at the time of the shooting. However, the record is totally void of testimony by Hopper concerning uncommunicated threats. We cannot assume that she would have testified as contended by Gates. The point was not properly preserved.