Opinion ID: 1657679
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: whether the trial court erred by refusing to allow the affidavit of confidential informant, anthony cole, into evidence and/or refusing to consider cole's admissions to brehm t. bell?

Text: As stated earlier, the CI in this case gave a sworn affidavit that Turner did not sell the drugs; rather, the CI swore that Odoms sold the drugs and that he told the narcotics agent that Odoms was Turner. Pursuant to Rule 601(b) of the Mississippi Rule of Evidence, the judge would not allow the affidavit into evidence because the CI, Cole, had been convicted of perjury. The defense also tried to elicit testimony from Brehm T. Bell, an associate in the employ of Turner's counsel. The defense wanted Bell to testify as to what Cole had told him, i.e., the contents of the affidavit. The State objected and defense counsel argued that Cole's statement to Bell was a statement against interest. The trial judge did not allow Bell to testify regarding Cole's statements. The judge was correct in ruling that the testimony and affidavit of Cole (the CI) were inadmissible under M.R.E. 601(b), which states that [a] person convicted of perjury or subornation of perjury shall not be a competent witness in any case, even though pardoned or punished for the same. As to the statements Cole made to Attorney Bell, the question is whether those statements fell within an exception to the hearsay rule  namely, M.R.E. 804(b)(3). If so, then Bell could have testified regarding Cole's statements that he lied when he identified Turner as the person who sold the drugs. Rule 804(b)(3) of the Mississippi Rules of Evidence provides as follows: Statement Against Interest. A statement which was at the time of its making so far contrary to the declarant's pecuniary or proprietary interest, or so far tended to subject him to civil or criminal liability, or to render invalid a claim by him against another, that a reasonable man in his position would not have made the statement unless he believed it to be true. A statement tending to expose the declarant to criminal liability and offered to exculpate the accused is not admissible unless corroborating circumstances clearly indicate the trustworthiness of the statement. Clearly, Cole was not competent to testify. The statements he made to Bell would have subjected him to more perjury charges, since he identified Turner at trial as the person who sold the drugs. [2] However, Cole's statement is also a statement tending to expose the declarant to criminal liability and offered to exculpate the accused. It was therefore inadmissible, unless corroborating circumstances clearly indicated that it was trustworthy. Here we have the statement of a convicted perjurer. The only corroborating circumstance is the testimony of Odoms, a friend of Turner's family who came forward after the statute of limitations had run. Odoms confessed to selling drugs to the CI on the same days for which Turner was convicted of selling drugs to Cole  in a location where several drug transactions occurred daily. Furthermore, Cole's statement contradicted Officer Vaughan's in-court identification of Turner as the person who sold the drugs. It does not appear that the trial judge abused his discretion in excluding the CI's remarks to Bell. There was nothing to clearly indicate the trustworthiness of the statement. See M.R.E. 804(b)(3); Carr v. State 655 So.2d 824, 834-35 (Miss. 1995).