Opinion ID: 1126392
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: whether jones was denied his constitutional right to a fair trial due to the introduction of prejudicial hearsay testimony

Text: ¶ 18. A criminal defendant is not entitled to a perfect trial, only a fair trial. McGilberry v. State, 741 So.2d 894, 924 (Miss.1999). Jones asserts he was denied his constitutional right to a fair trial because of the blatantly proscribed hearsay that was admitted at trial. First, Jones contends the circuit court erred by allowing Millie R. Steverson, Steve's mother, to testify to hearsay. A review of the record, however, indicates that the testimony of Steve's mother was not hearsay. Hearsay is defined as 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. M.R.E. 801(c). ¶ 19. In the present case, Steve's mother testified that Coleman knocked on her door and told her Steve would be killed if she did not come up with the money Steve owed Martin. Steve's mother further testified that she ran out to the car and begged for her son's life, explaining she saw her son being hit on the head in the back seat. The testimony of Steve's mother was not offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted, but rather was offered to show what was said and the surrounding circumstances. Generally, words which accompany and give character to a transaction are not considered hearsay. Gayten v. State, 595 So.2d 409, 414 (Miss.1992). Just as clearly, the fact that these statements were made indicates the nature of the transaction and, in fact, that there was a transaction. Id. Therefore, Jones's argument that the circuit court erred in allowing hearsay testimony by Millie R. Steverson is without merit. ¶ 20. Likewise, Jones asserts the court erred by admitting the testimony of Steve's sister, Millie O. Steverson. Jones alleges the testimony of Steve's sister that she heard Steve ask his mother to give up the keys to the car is inadmissible hearsay. This Court disagrees. As noted above, the testimony of Steve's sister was not offered for the truth of the matter asserted, but rather was offered for the fact it was said. Accordingly, this issue is without merit. ¶ 21. Jones next asserts the court erred in allowing the hearsay testimony of co-defendant Diane Coleman. Jones contends the circuit court erred by allowing Coleman to testify as to what was said in the car on the way to the pool hall. Once again, as noted above, Coleman's testimony that Martin said he was going to straighten out his business and asked Jones if he was willing to help is not hearsay. M.R.E. 801(d)(2)(E) provides that a statement is not considered hearsay if it is an admission by a party-opponent, offered against a party, and is a statement by a co-conspirator of a party during the course and in furtherance of the conspiracy. See Wilkins v. State, 603 So.2d 309, 317 (Miss.1992). Coleman's testimony about the plans made by Jones, Martin and her in the car on the way to kidnap Steve was not hearsay. Consequently, the circuit court did not err in admitting Coleman's testimony, and this issue is also without merit. ¶ 22. Finally, Jones asserts the circuit court erred in admitting the hearsay testimony of Dr. Steven Hayne, wherein Dr. Hayne was asked about the presence of a Dr. Waldrip, a forensic anthropologist. Dr. Hayne testified that Dr. Waldrip was present at the time of the autopsy, that Dr. Waldrip's comments were confirmatory of his findings, and that Dr. Waldrip's comments were something that is reasonably and customarily relied upon by forensic pathologists ... in forming opinions. ¶ 23. M.R.E. 703 provides: The facts or data in the particular case upon which an expert bases an opinion or inference may be those perceived by or made known to him at or before the hearing. If of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in the particular field in forming opinions or interferences upon the subject, the facts or data need not be admissible into evidence. Consequently, this Court finds the circuit court did not err by allowing Dr. Hayne's testimony. Furthermore, no hearsay error occurred, and Jones was not denied his constitutional right to a fair trial.