Opinion ID: 1859555
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Testimony by Evelyn Simms

Text: In his sixth point on appeal, Mr. Gaines asserts that the trial court erred in allowing Evelyn Simms to testify about statements made by Mr. Gaines the day after the fire. He contends that her testimony was not relevant, did not amount to an admission against interest, and was unfairly prejudicial. The State suggests that Mr. Gaines abandoned any objection to Ms. Simms's testimony, with the exception of her testimony about Mr. Gaines being possessive, when his attorney made the following remark at trial: DEFENSE COUNSEL: I don't mean that her whole testimony should be precluded. I think either reference to the statements that he was possessive which caused their breakup is the specific portions of her testimony that we object to. The State nonetheless acknowledges that Mr. Gaines never specifically disavowed any portion of his motion to exclude Ms. Simms's testimony. Based on this record, we cannot say that Mr. Gaines abandoned any portion of his arguments on the admissibility of Ms. Simms's testimony. As previously stated, Ms. Simms testified that Mr. Gaines checked into the motel where she worked and asked her for a telephone book to locate the number for the bus station. During this conversation, he also told her that he had did [ sic ] something that he knew he was going to have to pay for. When she asked him if it had anything to do with the children who died in the fire, he repeated the following statement several times: I've made a mistake and I know I've got to pay for it. Mr. Gaines now claims that he never specifically told Ms. Simms that his mistake had something to do with the fire, and that he could have been referring to some other mistake. Such a claim concerning how a defendant's statement should be interpreted does not go to the admissibility of the statement, but only to its weight, which lies within the province of the jury. See Webb v. State, 327 Ark. 51, 938 S.W.2d 806 (1997); Slocum v. State, 325 Ark. 38, 924 S.W.2d 237 (1996). A party's own statement that is offered against him is clearly admissible under Ark. R. Evid. 801(d)(2). In considering the evidence as a whole, the jury could have reasonably inferred that Mr. Gaines was referring to the fire and the deaths of the unintended victims when he made the statements to Ms. Simms only hours after the fire. We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing Ms. Simms's testimony.