Opinion ID: 1878960
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: whether the trial court erred in admitting the hearsay testimony of bryan dill.

Text: ¶ 38. Baldwin asserts that the trial court erred by admitting over objection the inadmissible hearsay of Bryan Dill. Detective Tony Mulligan of the Lowndes County Sheriff's Department testified that Bryan told him he only had approximately $12,000 to $25,000 in life insurance on his wife. The detective also testified as follows: Q: And what did you respond to him insofar as this, uh, information about insurance was concerned? A: I told him, I said, uh, Well, Bryan, uh, you can't collect insurance on her until her body is, uh, found anyway. Q: That was on April 8, 1996, is that correct? A: That's correct, around lunch time. Q: And when was the body of Liz Dill found? A: Uh, April ninth at approximately two p.m. Q: Subsequently to that, how much life insurance did you discover Bryan Dill actually had on his wife? A: We've, uh, found he had over two hundred and fifty thousand dollars is what he would collect. Baldwin did not object to the introduction of this second amount. His only objection concerned Bryan Dill's statement to Mulligan regarding the $12,000 to $25,000 amount. ¶ 39. The State argues that Bryan Dill's statement about the amount of life insurance was not offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted but rather to show that Bryan Dill misled the detective. The State theorizes that Dill hired and paid Clint and Darnell Baldwin to kill his wife. According to the State's theory, Dill's motive was to collect a large amount of life insurance. The State asserts that the testimony in question was offered to prove the fact that Bryan Dill lied to the detective in an effort to hide his motive to have his wife killed. ¶ 40. Hearsay is defined as 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). A statement that is not offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted is not hearsay and is, thus, admissible if it meets other evidentiary requirements. See generally Jones v. State, 776 So.2d 643, 649-50 (Miss.2000) (holding that testimony of capital murder victim's mother that co-defendant told her the victim would be killed if she did not give money owed was not offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted and was, thus, not hearsay). ¶ 41. In the present case, the State attempted to establish its theory by presenting Bryan Dill's motive through the testimony of Detective Mulligan. Clearly, the State did not offer Mulligan's testimony to prove that Bryan Dill only had a $12,000 to $25,000 life insurance policy on his wife. The statements of Detective Mulligan do not fit the definition of hearsay and were admissible. Therefore, we find this assignment of error to be without merit.