Opinion ID: 1659705
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: whether william holly was denied a fundamentally fair trial where the state was allowed to elicit hearsay testimony from robert kendall which bolstered the testimony of accomplice/state's witness waylon kendall.

Text: Holly contends that the trial court improperly allowed the prosecution to elicit inadmissible hearsay testimony from the witness Robert Kendall in order to bolster the testimony of Holly's accomplice, Waylon Kendall. The following colloquy between Robert Kendall and the prosecuting attorney transpired during trial: A. He [Waylon Kendall] was running scared for his life. Q. What did he tell you at that time? BY MR. JONES: Objection to hearsay. BY THE COURT: Objection is overruled. A. He told me that he was just escaped from Bill Holly, that had him in his  he was  had him  hostage, or something or other. I don't know the exact word for it. Q. All right. What else did he tell you? A. And, said that they had just killed a taxi-cab driver. BY THE COURT: Let me see counsel up here for a moment. (REPORTER'S NOTE: Counsel approached the Bench and conferred with the Court out of the hearing of the Reporter and the jury, after which the following was placed into the record, in full hearing of jury:) BY MR. JONES: Your honor, I ask that the same objection be continued. BY THE COURT: Well. I'm getting ready to reverse an earlier ruling, and I will rule the last statement regarding statements made by his nephew are inadmissible, and instruct the jury to disregard that. If there is anyone who will not do that, they should indicate it to me. No one has raised their hand. All right, please continue. Q. All right, Mr. Kendall, without saying what your nephew told you, once he told you whatever he told you, who did you carry him to? Where'd you carry him? Although the testimony was hearsay, the trial judge wisely reversed his ruling. He followed the reversal of his ruling by admonishing the jury to disregard the improper testimony, and asking the jury members if they could disregard the testimony. All jurors indicated they would disregard the testimony. When the trial judge determines that the error does not reach the level of prejudice warranting a mistrial, the judge should admonish the jury to disregard the impropriety in order to cure its prejudicial effect. Perkins v. State, 600 So.2d 938, 941 (Miss. 1992); Estes v. State, 533 So.2d 437, 439 (Miss. 1988). This Court has repeatedly and consistently held that such action is sufficient to remove any prejudice resulting from the improper testimony. Baine v. State, 604 So.2d 249, 256 (Miss. 1992). The trial judge is permitted considerable discretion in determining whether a mistrial is warranted since the judge is best positioned for measuring the prejudicial effect. Roundtree v. State, 568 So.2d 1173, 1178 (Miss. 1990). Before beginning its deliberations, the jury was additionally instructed as follows: INSTRUCTION NO. C-1 The production of evidence in court is governed by rules of law. From time to time during the trial, it has been my duty as judge to rule on the admissibility of evidence. You must not concern yourself with the reasons for the court's rulings since they are controlled and governed by rules of law. You should not infer from any rulings by the court on these motions or objections to the evidence that the court has any opinion on the merits favoring one side or another. You should not speculate as to possible answers to questions which the court did not require to be answered. Further, you should not draw any inference from the content of those questions. You are to disregard all evidence which was excluded by the court from consideration during the course of the trial. Again, the trial judge made it clear that the hearsay testimony elicited from Robert Kendall was not to be considered by the jury. The jury is presumed to have followed the court's instructions. Marshall v. Lonberger, 459 U.S. 422, 438 n. 6, 103 S.Ct. 843, 853 n. 6, 74 L.Ed.2d 646 (1983). Holly argues that the damage had been done and reversible error already committed despite the trial court's reversal of its ruling and subsequent instruction to the jury to disregard excluded evidence. We find this argument to be without merit. The hearsay testimony introduced in the case at bar does not appear to rise to the level of prejudice suggested by Holly. In fact, testimony producing similar evidence was properly introduced later at trial through Holly's admissions to Waylon Kendall. This Court finds that the overall prejudicial effect of the improper hearsay testimony was minimal and that any prejudicial effect was cured by the court's admonitions to the jury. Accordingly, this issue is resolved in favor of the State. The Appellant raises three additional issues which we discuss together since they are procedurally barred.