Opinion ID: 1111231
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Owen Lee Harden's Confessions

Text: The prosecution offered testimony from former Sheriff Bryan, District Attorney Bobby Williams and his wife Vickie, to the effect that Owen Lee Harden had confessed to them that he killed James Williamson. Sheriff Bryan testified that Harden confessed to him while in the Yalobusha County Jail that he had killed James Williamson. Vickie Williams, wife of District Attorney Bobby Williams, was permitted to testify that Owen Lee Harden called their home and she listened while Harden confessed the murder of James Williamson to her husband Bobby Williams over the phone. Bobby Williams was permitted to testify about this phone conversation, telling the jury what Harden told him when he called. But Harden's confession is hearsay. Harden's confession is not admissible under any exception to that rule of which we are aware. See Fermo v. State, 370 So.2d 930, 934 (Miss. 1979); Lee v. State, 338 So.2d 399, 402 (Miss. 1976) and Thompson v. State, 309 So.2d 533, 534-35 (Miss. 1975). In each of those three cases, as here, the so-called confession of the third party came from a person who was not present to testify at trial. Accordingly, the defense in each instance sought to introduce the hearsay version of the so-called confession under the declaration against penal interest exception to the hearsay rule. In each of those cases the person who gave the so-called confession was not a party to the proceedings nor was that person's testimony available in any form. Typical of the Thompson-Lee-Fermo holdings is the statement in Fermo that: We hold, therefore, that ... where the declarant is not available his out of court declarations against penal interest are not sufficiently trustworthy to justify the court in making an exception to the hearsay rule. 370 So.2d at 934. If the defense may not offer the hearsay confession of another not present to testify, the prosecution labors under a similar disability. Assuming relevance  a point not at all free of doubt, admission of the Harden confession violated the hearsay rule and was error. This error, coupled with that found in Part III above, cast sufficient doubt upon the fairness of the trial Gullett received that reversal is required.