Opinion ID: 1128349
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: the lower court erred by excluding the statements allegedly made by chan to pham as hearsay, but such exclusion was harmless error.

Text: ¶ 8. Pham contends that the trial court erred when it excluded certain statements allegedly made by Chan, Pham's unlocated companion, as the two embarked on the trip to Quy Nguyen's house. Pham's proffer reveals that he sought to testify to the following: INTERPRETER: Chan told me that he and Thien had had a fight before, and he wanted to drive there to meet Thien and talk it out. And that's all. But I didn't ask him any questions. I just light a cigarette and smoked. ¶ 9. Pham contends that the exclusion of such evidence improperly limited him from presenting his theory of the case and that the proffered evidence was admissible because it was not offered to show the truth of the matter asserted. ¶ 10. Miss. R. Evid. 801(c) defines hearsay as follows: `Hearsay' is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted. This Court has followed the comment to that section which states that, If the significance of a statement is simply that it was made and there is no issue about the truth of the matter asserted, then, the statement is not hearsay. Miss. R. Evid. 801 cmt. See Eselin-Bullock & Assoc. Ins. Agency, Inc. v. National Gen. Ins. Co., 604 So.2d 236, 242 (Miss. 1992); Mickel v. State, 602 So.2d 1160, 1162 (Miss. 1992); Gayten v. State, 595 So.2d 409, 414 (Miss. 1992). ¶ 11. The statement offered by Pham did not seek to demonstrate the truth of whether Chan and Thien had actually had a fight, but was simply offered to show what Pham was told that they did, tending to show that Pham was not going to the Nguyen household to rob them. As such the statement was certainly relevant evidence that Pham lacked the intent necessary to convict him of capital murder. Furthermore, it should be noted that Pham was fully available for cross as to whether this statement was actually made and the overall context of the statement had it been allowed. Thus Pham's argument that the lower court erred in excluding the evidence is well taken. ¶ 12. In the instant case, however, this error was harmless. A party must do more than simply show some technical error has occurred before he will be entitled to a reversal on the exclusion or admission of evidence; there must be some showing of prejudice. [F]or a case to be reversed on the admission or exclusion of evidence, it must result in prejudice and harm or adversely affect a substantial right of a party. Terrain Enter., Inc. v. Mockbee, 654 So.2d 1122, 1131 (Miss. 1995)( citing Hansen v. State, 592 So.2d 114 (Miss. 1991)); Russell v. State, 607 So.2d 1107, 1114 (Miss. 1992); Miss. R. Evid. 103(a). In this case the State presented the testimony of two eyewitness that Pham had forced his way into their house brandishing a weapon and demanding money. Furthermore, Pham was apprehended with a loaded, albeit unchambered, weapon. Under these circumstances the erroneous exclusion of Pham's conversation with the mysterious Chan was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.