Opinion ID: 1737597
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: was the appellant denied a fair trial by the introduction of hearsay and improper bolstering of the prosecution witnesses?

Text: Under this, Stringer's third assignment of error, he claims that the State was allowed to improperly bolster the testimony given at trial by Mike Medders and Rhonda Brock. This Court disagrees. Stringer specifically challenges several exchanges between Medders and Brock and the Assistant District Attorney. The following questions are typical of the conduct now being challenged by Stringer on appeal: MEDDERS Q. Tell the ladies and gentlemen of the Jury what you told the police detectives about what you saw Jimbo Stringer use with a gun like this. Q. And what did you tell them about the plan that was involved? Was there any deviation in that? BROCK Q. And does that testimony vary one bit from what you've told this jury about him having one beforehand? Each of these questions was asked by the State during redirect examination. During defense counsel's cross-examination of Mike Medders, Medders was shown a copy of his prior testimony several times in an attempt to reveal inconsistencies in his story. Defense counsel also questioned Medders' ability to testify truthfully about the events surrounding the murders. Defense counsel also confronted Rhonda Brock with an allegedly prior inconsistent statement she had given to the Kosciusko police department. She was also accused of collaborating with Medders to fabricate the testimony implicating Jimbo Stringer in the McWilliams' murders. Stringer's counsel also explored Brock's possible motives for testifying against Stringer, namely the possibility that she would be granted leniency in exchange for her testimony against Stringer. Stringer also challenges several questions that were asked of Detective Robert Jordan of the Jackson Police Department. Although these questions were asked on direct, instead of redirect examination, they were used for the limited purpose of ascertaining the nature of what was learned from Rhonda Brock during the taking of her statement, and then comparing this information to Medders' story. This was done chiefly to explore the likelihood of Medders and Brock jointly plotting out their testimony, an area which had already been delved into earlier by Stringer's counsel during his cross-examination of Rhonda Brock. In the opinion of this Court, none of these allegations by Stringer have merit. Rule 801(d)(1)(B) of the Mississippi Rules of Evidence specifically addresses this issue. RULE 801 DEFINITIONS (d) Statements Which Are Not Hearsay. A statement is not hearsay if: (1) Prior Statement by Witness. The declarant testifies at the trial or hearing and is subject to cross-examination concerning the statement, and the statement is ... (B) consistent with his testimony and is offered to rebut an express or implied charge against him of recent fabrication or improper influence or motive .. . (Emphasis added) Rule 801(d)(1)(B) has only been discussed by this Court on a few occasions. In Ponthieux v. State, 532 So.2d 1239, 1247-48 (Miss. 1988) and Irving v. State, 498 So.2d 305, 317 (Miss. 1986), the Court quoted the above-cited portion of Rule 801 and then discussed the applicability of the rule based on the particular circumstances of each of the respective cases. Following the same factual analysis here, this Court concludes that Rule 801 is applicable. In each of the complained-of instances, the questions asked of the witnesses occurred on redirect examination or under equivalent circumstances. In other words, the questions were being posed in response to allegations raised by defense counsel on cross-examination. The circumstances under which Rule 801(d)(1)(B) is to be applied seem tailor-made for a situation such as this. Under the facts of this case, this Court perceives no error in the trial court's admission of the testimony in question.