Opinion ID: 1721954
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: whether the trial court erred in overruling the defendant's motion in limine regarding debbie glenn's testimony.

Text: ¶ 24. Melton contends the trial court should have sustained his motion in limine regarding the testimony of Debbie Glenn since he contends all Ms. Glenn's knowledge about the events in question came from her husband, Chester Glenn. The state argues this motion is not preserved on appeal and is therefore barred. The state also asserts that no hearsay testimony was allowed from Debbie Glenn except one sentence which was remedied by an instruction from the judge. The state contends there was no error by the trial judge. ¶ 25. A trial judge enjoys wide discretion with regard to the relevancy and admissibility of evidence. Fisher v. State, 690 So.2d 268, 274 (Miss.1996). We will not reverse a trial judge's evidentary ruling unless the judge commits an abuse of discretion prejudicial to the party bringing the motion. Fisher, 690 So.2d at 274. [Motions in limine] should be granted only when the trial court finds two factors present: the evidence in question will be inadmissible at trial under the rules of evidence and that mere offer, reference, or statements made during trial concerning the evidence will tend to prejudice the jury. Hopkins v. State, 639 So.2d 1247, 1254 (Miss. 1993). ¶ 26. A contemporaneous record of the motion in limine by the appellants was not preserved in this case. However, it was later made a part of the record. While any testimony by Ms. Glenn which simply reiterated her husband's testimony should be excluded as prejudicial, it is clear that she did have first-hand knowledge of some of the events around the time her husband loaned the gun in question to Melton. ¶ 27. She described where the gun was kept. She testified it was last fired six months prior to the week of February 5, 1996. She personally knew there were three rounds left in the gun prior to the week of February 5, 1996, and she personally discovered the gun was missing that week. She also saw her husband walking down the hall with the gun. All objections by appellants to Ms. Glenn's testimony were sustained and in one instance an instruction was given to the jury to disregard what she said. The trial judge instructed the parties that the hearsay objection would be sustained unless Ms. Glenn could testify based on her own knowledge. Melton suffered no prejudice since the trial judge carefully protected the testimony to avoid entry of inadmissible hearsay. The judge did not abuse his discretion in denying the appellant's motion in limine and allowing Ms. Glenn to testify. This assignment of error is without merit.