Opinion ID: 1103979
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: puckett was denied his fundamental and constitutional right to a fair trial by the admission of the testimony of justin and jeffery griffis.

Text: ¶ 34. Puckett's claims that he was denied his fundamental right to a fair trial because the trial judge overruled his objection and permitted the testimony of Justin [3] and Jeffery Griffis, [4] the victim's children. Puckett contends that the State had already established evidence through Nancy Hatten and David Griffis that Rhonda was home alone while David and the children were out gathering pine straw before returning home around 5:00 P.M. Puckett asserts that the testimony of the children did not go to anything at issue. Their testimony was presented by prosecution purely for sympathy value. Puckett objected to the testimony of Jeffery and Justin at trial on the basis of relevancy. He also objected at trial to the cumulative nature of their testimony. The trial judge found that the boys were competent witnesses and allowed their testimony. Although Puckett was capable of raising this issue on direct appeal, he did not. The issue is procedurally barred. Miss.Code Ann. § 99-39-21(1); Wiley v. State, 750 So.2d 1193, 1208 (Miss.1999). ¶ 35. Without waiving the procedural bar, the issue is also without merit. Puckett cites two cases in his argument. First, Puckett quotes Cox v. State, 849 So.2d 1257 (Miss.2003). Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence. Id. at 1269 (emphasis added). This statement from Cox is, verbatim, M.R.E. 403. The Comment to Rule 403 states that [t]his rule also gives the trial judge discretion to exclude evidence which is merely cumulative. M.R.E. 403 cmt., citing Carr v. State, 208 So.2d 886 (Miss. 1968). Further, [t]he relevancy and admissibility of evidence are largely within the discretion of the trial court and reversal may be had only where that discretion has been abused. Gray v. State, 728 So.2d 36, 56 (Miss.1998) (citations omitted). ¶ 36. Puckett also cites Flowers v. State, 842 So.2d 531, 541 (Miss.2003), for the proposition that evidence should be limited to what is relevant to the single issue. As the State points out, the context in which this statement was made in Flowers was a discussion regarding evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or bad acts pursuant to M.R.E. 404(b). That is not to say that eyewitness testimony should not also be relevant. `Relevant Evidence' means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence. M.R.E. 401. ¶ 37. Through his testimony, Jeffery identified Puckett as the man he saw inside the family's home upon returning from collecting straw on the day of the murder. He also testified that Puckett was holding on to Nancy Hatten's shirt and holding a club in the other hand. It cannot be said that Jeffery's testimony was irrelevant. ¶ 38. Justin testified that he saw his mother before going with his brother and father to collect pine straw and that his mother was okay at that time. The state argued at trial that the defense had made the opening statement that somebody else had murdered Rhonda and that Justin's testimony would help established the time frame in which the murder had occurred. This Court finds that Justin's testimony was also relevant. ¶ 39. Even if we assume, for the sake of argument, that the relevant testimony of Justin and Jeffery was cumulative to matters already established through testimony of Nancy Hatten and David Griffis, Puckett's defense was to accuse David Griffis of the murder. The testimony of the boys corroborated portions of David Griffis's testimony. The trial judge did not abuse his discretion in allowing the testimony. ¶ 40. Puckett's claim is both procedurally barred and without merit.