Opinion ID: 1109157
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

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

Text: ¶ 68. Farris next complains that Byran O'Rourke's conversations with Chancellor Taylor, Charlie Morgan and Greg Alston were inadmissible hearsay not falling within an exception. Farris also takes exception to Gene Combs's testimony about statements made by Greg Alston and Chancellor Taylor. ¶ 69. The prosecution was allowed to introduce testimony from Jay Jernigan that Chancellor Taylor, on four or five occasions in 1995, had instructed Jernigan to pad his legal bills and pay part of the excess fee to the judge. Chancellor Taylor told Jernigan on several occasions that he needed $3,000 and implied that Jernigan should over bill the conservatorship to pay the kickback. ¶ 70. Prosecution witness Gene Combs testified that when he approached Chancellor Taylor about purchasing Allied Heirlooms, late in the year of 1995, Taylor told him that one-third of the business would have to be set aside for his personal benefit. Combs was also allowed to testify that shortly after Chancellor Taylor's solicitation, Greg Alston told him that one-third of the sale price of the business would have to be retained for the Chancellor. Ike Farris objected to these out-of-court statements and filed a motion in limine to bar the evidence. The motion and objections were overruled by the trial court. ¶ 71. Error may not be predicated upon a ruling which admits or excludes evidence unless a substantial right of the party is affected.... M.R.E. 103(a). Admission or suppression of evidence is within the sound discretion of the trial judge and will not be reversed absent an abuse of that discretion. Sumrall v. Mississippi Power Co., 693 So.2d 359, 365 (Miss.1997). We will reverse a case under that standard only when [t]he admission or exclusion of evidence ... result[s] in prejudice and harm or adversely affect[s] a substantial right of a party. Hansen v. State, 592 So.2d 114, 132 (Miss.1991). ¶ 72. O'Rourke's testimony principally dealt with an in camera hearing he attended on January 16, 1996, that included Chancellor Taylor, Greg Alston, Ike Farris, Charlie Morgan, and Todd Bradley. O'Rourke also testified about a closed-door meeting immediately after the hearing which included all of the people in the hearing except Todd Bradley. O'Rourke testified that on the motion of Sam Farris, Chancellor Taylor appointed him chief financial officer of Allied Heirlooms the very first time he met O'Rourke in courtin October of 1995. O'Rourke's court appointment coincided with his continued representation of Manhattan Square Limited Partnership, and Sam Farris in negotiations to purchase Allied Heirlooms. The combined effect of this testimony inferred that a conspiracy was afoot before O'Rourke even appeared in the Forrest County Chancery Court or had occasion to meet Chancellor Taylor. ¶ 73. Although Ike Farris testified that his only responsibility as guardian ad litem was to protect Jack Diamond and his home, he issued a subpoena duces tecum mandating that Greg Anderson supply a business valuation of Allied Heirlooms at the January 16 meeting. The record indicates that when Ike Farris issued this subpoena with Chancellor Taylor's seal, he was fully aware that his brother, Sam Farris, was representing Manhattan Square Limited in a pending offer to buy Allied Heirlooms for $700,000. Ike Farris recognized that O'Rourke was also working as a financial consultant for Manhattan Square Limited in tandem with Sam Farris. O'Rourke testified that Greg Anderson later submitted the financial valuation pursuant to the subpoena issued by Ike Farris and signed by Chancellor Taylor. When Anderson presented the business valuation in the closed-door meeting, Ike Farris questioned him at length over financial details relating to Allied Heirlooms and repeatedly asked whether anyone else had looked at the documents. O'Rourke testified that Ike Farris was present when Charlie Morgan requested that the Allied Heirlooms bank accounts be transferred from Picayune to Hattiesburg for supposedly confidential legal reasons. Todd Bradley and other employees at Allied knew of the excessive attorneys fees and expenses which were draining the business, and O'Rourke testified that Ike Farris and others present at the closed-door meeting were aware of these circumstances. When Charlie Morgan related his supposed fears over the death threats against Jack Diamond and O'Rourke offered the simple suggestion of notifying the Picayune Police Department, Ike Farris remained strangely silent since he knew of the security arrangement between Scott Morgan and the conservatorship but had failed personally to contact the local police as guardian ad litem. ¶ 74. After the closed-door meeting Ike Farris told O'Rourke that he was making him look bad because O'Rourke was not billing the conservatorship for enough money. Whether Farris was joking with O'Rourke about the fees in this instance was merely a question of fact or credibility for the jury, but the statement was clearly admissible as an admission by a party-opponent under M.R.E. 801(d)(2)(A). As such, O'Rourke's testimony was not dependent upon whether Ike Farris was a co-conspirator for statements under M.R.E. 801(d)(2)(E). The totality of these statements provided critical guidance to the jury about when and why the various co-conspirators knew of this delicate information concerning the conservatorship. ¶ 75. The testimony offered by O'Rourke concerning the statements of the other co-conspirators, indicted or otherwise, was admissible as existing during the course of the conspiracy and in furtherance of it. M.R.E. 801(d)(2)(E). Relevant and otherwise admissible evidence must still pass through the filter of M.R.E. 403. Besides asking repeatedly whether anyone had seen the business valuation of Allied Heirlooms, Ike Farris was present during the entire meeting and noticeably declined to speak or ask about anything other than Allied's financial details. The probative value of the statements, largely made by other co-conspirators, was very helpful in demonstrating the mechanics of the conspiracy to the jury, and as such, was not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to Ike Farris. A statement soliciting a bribe is not hearsay. United States v. Moss, 9 F.3d 543, 550 (6th Cir.1993); United States v. Villarreal, 764 F.2d 1048, 1050 n. 2 (5th Cir.1985). Chancellor Taylor's bribe solicitation was not offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. His testimony was offered to prove the act of solicitation, not that Chancellor Taylor specifically needed $3,000. Even though these solicitation attempts are not hearsay, they must still be relevant to be admissible. Even if relevant, M.R.E. 403 prohibits the introduction of evidence if the probative value of the testimony is substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect. ¶ 76. Chancellor Taylor's statements to Jernigan in which he attempted to solicit a kickback happened between June and November of 1995. Chancellor Taylor appointed Ike Farris as guardian ad litem on October 12, 1995, two days after Chancellor Taylor appointed Jernigan conservator. Since the dates of the Chancellor Taylor's solicitations for kickbacks coincided with Ike Farris's appointment and service as guardian ad litem, the testimony relating to Chancellor Taylor's kickback solicitations was highly relevant to the timing, motives, opportunities and identities of the co-conspirators. [2] For example, Chancellor Taylor's kickback solicitations to Jernigan established that the Chancellor had an opportunity to wield virtually unbridled power from the bench by approving excessive attorney's fees in exchange for a kickback. The probative value of the testimony was not outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice since Ike Farris and Jay Jernigan were both acting in important fiduciary capacities before Chancellor Taylor and the Forrest County Chancery Court at the time of at least one of the Chancellor's kickback solicitations to Jernigan. M.R.E. 403. ¶ 77. Ike Farris testified that he submitted bills to Greg Alston, that Alston would in turn submit those bills, along with other expenses, to Charlie Morgan and Chancellor Taylor for payment. Alston's solicitation to Gene Combs was not offered as proof of the matter asserted that Chancellor Taylor actually needed one-third of the purchase price of Allied Heirlooms. Alston's solicitation was offered to show his personal knowledge of the over billing scheme and how his act of solicitation on behalf of Chancellor Taylor independently furthered the conspiracy. ¶ 78. Alston's capacity as attorney for the conservatorship provided the primary means by which Ike Farris was paid. Alston solicited a kickback for Chancellor Taylor in late 1995. This solicitation coincided with Ike Farris assuming the role of guardian ad litem on October 12, 1995, and maintaining that official position through the end of November, the last date identified in testimony of Chancellor Taylor's seeking a kickback from Jay Jernigan. After Jernigan resigned his position as conservator on December 15, 1995, Farris and Alston continued in their respective capacities throughout the year of 1996. ¶ 79. The existence of these common fiduciary relations during Alston's kickback solicitation to Combs, on behalf of Chancellor Taylor, was highly probative of several related factors (planing, timing, motives, opportunities, identities and knowledge) involving the co-conspirators. Ike Farris and Greg Alston were jointly acting in official capacities during this time as the respective guardian ad litem and attorney for the conservatorship. Therefore, the probative value of Alston's solicitation was not outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to Ike Farris under M.R.E. 403. ¶ 80. We have held that once a conspiracy is established, a statement made by a co-conspirator of a party during the course and in furtherance of the conspiracy is admissible against each conspirator, notwithstanding the confrontation clause or hearsay rule. Ponthieux v. State, 532 So.2d at 1243. Statements made by co-conspirators in furtherance of the conspiracy are considered non-hearsay by definition. M.R.E. 801(d)(2)(e). We hold that the statements at issue occurred in the course of the conspiracy and in furtherance of the conspiracy with Ike Farris. This issue fails.