Opinion ID: 1099739
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Whether the trial court erred in admitting evidence of the prior and allegedly consistent statements of Watson and Newton.

Text: ś 40. The brothers next complain that the trial court committed reversible error by admitting prior consistent statements of Watson and Newton. During the 1999 murder trial, Newton and Watson were both questioned about prior consistent statements, made in 1970 to the sheriffs office. ś 41. The brothers cite the prosecution's opening statement comments that Newton's and Watson's almost 30-year-old statements would be the same as their trial testimony. During the direct examination of Newton, the State wanted Newton to read his 1970 statement into the record because of slight discrepancies between the statement and his testimony. The brothers objected, and the trial judge allowed questioning, but not the admission of the statement. Later, the trial judge sustained the brothers' objection when the prosecution attempted to show the statement to the jury. ś 42. As to Watson's direct testimony, the prosecution asked [t]he statement that you [Watson] made 30 years ago about the incident, has it changed at all from what you've told us today about what occurred? Watson responded in the negative. There was no objection to this question posed by the prosecution. ś 43. Mississippi Rules of Evidence 801(d)(1) states the following: (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 (A) inconsistent with his testimony, and was given under oath subject to the penalty of perjury at a trial, hearing or other proceeding, or in a deposition, or (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, or (C) one of identification of a person made after perceiving him... (emphasis added). Therefore, M.R.E. 801(d)(1)(B) normally applies in rebuttal situations. [A]dmission of a prior consistent statement of a witness where the veracity of the witness has been attacked is proper but should be received by the court with great caution and only for the purpose of rebuttal so as to enable the jury to make a correct appraisal of the credibility of the witness.' White v. State, 616 So.2d 304, 308 (Miss.1993) (quoting Stampley v. State, 284 So.2d 305, 307 (Miss.1973)). However, this Court in Clemons v. State, 732 So.2d 883, 891 (Miss.1999) held that a statement elicited by the State, who questioned a witness concerning a guilty plea prior to an attack on his credibility, should have been excluded, but a reversal was not warranted. Id. In Clemons, this Court considered that the witness, Sudberry, was among other things the primary witness against Clemons, his credibility was key to the case, he was vigorously cross-examined and that despite the premature introduction of the plea it was unlikely that he would not have been attacked by opposing counsel. d. Therefore, the Court found that when Sudberry testified to the plea on direct examination, he added nothing to his otherwise competent testimony. Id. Accordingly, this Court did not find that the premature statements warranted reversal. Id. ś 44. In the case sub judice, this Court finds that eliciting prior consistent statements in the absence of a challenge to the witness's veracity should be given only for the purpose of rebuttal. The circumstances of this case, however, do not warrant a reversal. This issue is without merit.