Opinion ID: 1830890
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 24

Heading: the trial court erred in limiting defense counsel's inquiry concerning the scope of the police investigation into this offense.

Text: ¶ 40. During Manning's direct examination of Lindley, the following exchange took place: Q. Captain Lindley, other than Tyrone Smith, did your investigation turn up anyone else that, uh, that was, uh, confessing to the crime? BY MR. ALLGOOD: If your Honor please, it would be both irrelevant and it would be hearsay and I would object to that. BY THE COURT: The objection, uh, will be sustained. Manning asserts that the trial court erred in sustaining the prosecutor's objection, because the evidence would not have been hearsay since it was not offered to show the truth of the matter asserted. Instead he claims that he was attempting to show that police targeted Manning to the exclusion of other legitimate suspects. Manning's theory is that several people in the community claimed responsibility for the double homicide, lessening the credibility of all of the alleged confessions, including his own. ¶ 41. Manning cites no authority for his position that Lindley's testimony regarding other confessions uncovered during the investigation was admissible. As a result, we need not address the merits of this assignment of error. De La Beckwith v. State, 707 So.2d 547, 597 (Miss.1997). ¶ 42. Without waiving Manning's burden to cite supporting authority, we proceed to a discussion of the merits. `Hearsay' is 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. Miss. R. Evid. 801(c). Hearsay is generally inadmissible unless it falls under a recognized exception. Miss. R. Evid. 802. The State argues that Lindley's testimony would have been hearsay, because Manning attempted to prove the truth of the matter asserted-that other people confessed to the crime. This is a misinterpretation of the hearsay issue presented here. Lindley's testimony would only be hearsay if offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted-the truth of the other confessions. Manning should have been allowed to question Lindley regarding other known confessions in the case, but only to prove that there were other viable suspects. However, because Manning failed to assert this position at trial, we refuse to hold Judge Montgomery in error for sustaining the State's objection. It was reasonable for the trial court to assume that Manning was attempting to prove through Lindley's testimony that one of the other confessors committed the murders. The testimony would in that situation be inadmissible based upon the hearsay rule. Manning waived his argument by failing to present it to the court at the time of the objection. See Chase v. State, 645 So.2d 829, 846 (Miss.1994) (A trial court cannot be put in error on a matter not presented to the court for decision.). ¶ 43. Moreover, no prejudice resulted from the trial court's ruling, because Manning was able to put on evidence of the confessions and other suspects by questioning witnesses other than Lindley. Manning examined Tyrone Smith about his and another individual's confessions and called key suspect James Lee Jimmerson as a witness. Manning also elicited testimony from Kevin Lucious on crossexamination, without objection from the State, that Tyrone Smith had confessed to killing the two women. Manning's case was not prejudiced by the exclusion of Lindley's testimony related to other confessions in this case.