Opinion ID: 1309189
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: other trial error

Text: The remaining claims of trial error may be disposed of rather briefly. The defendant claims it was error not to permit defense witness Callen to testify about a conversation he had with one of the assistant prosecutors. The assistant prosecutor related to Callen an observation that he had of the victim and victim's mother whereby the victim's mother encouraged the victim to report the crime. This conversation was clearly hearsay as we have generally defined it as where a witness testifies [in court] with regard to [out-of-court] statements of another for the purpose of proving the truth of the matter asserted. Salerno v. Manchin, W.Va., 213 S.E.2d 805, 809, 77 A.L.R.3d 1167, 1173 (1974). No claim is made that the statements fall within any of the recognized exceptions to the hearsay rule including Rule 804(b)(5) of the Federal Rules of Evidence which we adopted in State v. Williams, W.Va., 249 S.E.2d 752 (1978). [17] The defense also contends that error was committed when during the trial the State served a subpoena to have defense witness Callen appear before the Kanawha County Grand Jury after he had concluded his testimony. The service was not made in the presence of the jury and apparently received little or no notoriety. The defendant asserts on appeal that the subpoena might have had a chilling affect on other defense witnesses. There are no specific facts asserted to show any prejudice to the defendant. We decline to find this error.