Opinion ID: 1721671
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: did the use of hearsay and hearsay-upon-hearsay in securing shell's conviction deprive him of due process?

Text: Shell challenges several statements made at trial, from a variety of sources, as hearsay and hearsay-upon-hearsay. M.R.E. 801. Again, no defense objection was made as to any of the evidence. The first point under this assignment is a subject that has already been addressed under another assignment of error  namely, the statements made by Mrs. Shell to the Sheriff, allegedly in violation of the spousal privilege. The issue here is with reference to its hearsay nature. However, the record shows that the sheriff stated She told me the same story that he had told me. The record is not clear as to whom he refers, whether Mrs. Shell's father or her husband. No contemporaneous objection to hearsay was made. This Court holds that this statement does not constitute reversible error based upon a hearsay objection. Shell next claims that the Sheriff's testimony concerning his conversations with the appellant's father-in-law constituted hearsay. The appellant makes several references in his brief to the points where the alleged hearsay testimony can be found. The only references by the Sheriff in the record to the appellant's father-in-law concern the location of the father-in-law's residence, the fact that the father-in-law was dead at the time of trial, and the fact that the Sheriff talked to the father-in-law on June 10, 1986, two days after the murder took place. There is no testimony from the Sheriff as to the specifics of his conversation with the father-in-law. Therefore, there is no hearsay present to form a basis-in-fact for this portion of the assignment of error. Shell next questions the testimony of Rev. Commer, in particular the following statements: A. And my wife did talk with Evelyn (the victim's stepdaughter), and she said, This is Evelyn. And my wife knows several Evelyns, and she asked, Evelyn who? She said, Bro. Johnson's daughter. She said, Someone has tried to kill me. ... A. No, I didn't know where she was, and I wasn't even sure if it was Evelyn, because it didn't sound hardly human. The State once again asserts the procedural bar issue, because no objection to the testimony was ever made by defense counsel. Cole and Pinkney, supra . Rev. Commer's testimony was offered to prove something other than the truth of the matter asserted. He was asked the questions, not to prove that someone had killed Mrs. Johnson and attempted to kill Evelyn Lenaz, but to explain the circumstances surrounding his call to the authorities and to explain his presence at Mrs. Johnson's home. Cases from this Court have upheld the introduction into evidence of other alleged hearsay testimony when their admissibility was challenged on appeal. See Harrison v. State, 534 So.2d 175, 179 (Miss. 1988) (prior statements of witness admissible as circumstantial evidence to show that his trial testimony was unreliable); Alford v. State, 508 So.2d 1039, 1042 (Miss. 1987) (father-in-law's testimony offered not to show that defendant had gun but to show why father-in-law went to get gun); Swindle v. State, 502 So.2d 652, 657-58 (Miss. 1987) (conversation of informant admissible to show why officer acted as he did and was in particular location at a particular time); Graves v. State, 492 So.2d 562, 565 (Miss. 1986) (statement offered not to prove defendant was wearing certain clothing, but that a witness said he was). Shell's final challenge under this assignment of error concerns the admission into evidence of a copy of Mrs. Johnson's death certificate. He maintains that the introduction of the death certificate without producing witnesses who could be cross-examined about it, constituted hearsay. There is a specific exception to the hearsay rule, under Rule 803 of the Mississippi Rules of Evidence, which addresses this situation: (9) Records of Vital Statistics. Records or data compilations of vital statistics, in any form, if the report thereof was made to a public officer pursuant to requirements of law. A death certificate clearly falls under the language of this hearsay exception. No contention is made that the death certificate was not properly certified or was otherwise defective. There is no merit to this assignment of error.