Opinion ID: 860430
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: He had already pumped his gas.

Text: A. Yeah, but he was fiddling with something back there. Q. And so after you snatched his wallet, as you say -- A. As what happened. Q. -- what did you do? You ran past him, right? A. I ran right past him, and he came right around me and turned right and went straight back to the store. . . . Q. How could you get past him without touching him? I mean, it's pretty narrow space. You've got gas pumps right there. You got his car right there. A. I used to be a running back. I was one of the best running backs in this city at Solomon Junior High School, and to slip a person is nothing. I could slip past you in that chair right there. The trial court's conclusion that Pruitt's story of the event was impossible when viewed against the video tape was the only possible conclusion. Pruitt's testimony described a one-act play, with two speaking parts and five separate events --Pruitt's following Pierce from the store door back across the drive and gas pump area to his car, during which stroll he asked at least two questions and waited for an answer each time; Pierce's bending over and fiddling with something at the car; Pruitt's observing this and deciding to rush up to Pierce and grab his wallet; Pierce's realizing what had happened, straightening up and yelling at Pruitt; then the run from the gas pumps back across the drive to inside the store. Those events just could not have happened in six seconds. It takes more time than that just to read the foregoing summary of the events. Of the two versions of events, the only one that was credible was that Pruitt accosted Pierce almost as soon as he got out of the store and demanded his wallet. Pierce threw it at him and ran back into the store. We agree with Pruitt that the trial court allowed inadmissible hearsay into evidence over objection. We cannot conclude, however, that the error affected the fairness of the trial. II. Trial court's observation that Pruitt's family laughed at his testimony Pruitt's counsel raises another issue regarding a comment made by Judge Bogen as he stated his reasons for finding guilt. Among the judge's statements was I conclude that [defense witnesses'] testimony may be summarized in three words- 'pack of lies' are those three words. In fact, the defendant's testimony can be described as laughable as evidenced by the fact that his own family sitting out in the courtroom was laughing at the preposterous nature of his testimony. Pruitt calls this hearsay because the record does not reflect laughter. The court was not acknowledging that he factored in the courtroom audience's response to testimony. We have described above why the court found Pruitt unbelievable. Though remarking on what occurred outside the statements and documents introduced into evidence was unnecessary, the court was merely noting that evidence he rejected because it was incredible, appeared also to be viewed in that light by some in attendance in the courtroom. Whether the judge was right or wrong in that observation, he did not make his perception of Pruitt's family the basis for his ruling. We find no error. III. Cumulative error Pruitt argues that should neither of the above by itself be reversible, then they should be considered cumulatively and reversed. Because we have already discussed the issues separately, we will not discuss them again except to say that we find that the issues when considered separately or together, do not constitute reversible error. Pro se issues Pro se, Pruitt raises ten additional issues. Our system of appellate review provides for ample representation by counsel, either court-appointed or retained. Counsel prepares a brief setting out the errors that arguably require reversal. Pruitt's counsel has presented an able if ultimately unconvincing brief in defense of his client. We have reviewed Pruitt's pro se issues and determine that none of them require reversal nor merit analysis in this opinion. See Johnson v. State, 449 So. 2d 225, 225 (Miss. 1984). THE JUDGMENT OF THE WASHINGTON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT OF CONVICTION OF ARMED ROBBERY AND SENTENCE AS A HABITUAL OFFENDER OF 18 YEARS WITH NO PAROLE IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS IS AFFIRMED. COSTS ARE TAXED TO WASHINGTON COUNTY. BRIDGES, C.J., McMILLIN AND THOMAS, P.JJ., COLEMAN, DIAZ, HERRING, HINKEBEIN, KING, AND PAYNE, JJ., CONCUR.