Opinion ID: 1130352
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Trial Court Erred in Permitting the Plaintiff to Show the Conduct of Relatives as Evidence of Paternity.

Text: Vince complains that the trial court permitted Nora to show that Vince's parents were present and visited her during the delivery of the child whose paternity is in dispute. Over Vince's objections, Nora was also permitted to testify that Vince's brothers and sisters and other kindred visited and exhibited affection toward the child. This testimony, offered by Nora as well as her mother, was properly objected to and overruled by the court. We find that Nora's testimony as to Vince's family's actions toward the minor child amounts to inadmissible hearsay. The comment to M.R.E. 801(a) dictates that some non-verbal conduct is tantamount to a verbal assertion. Nora's testimony concerning the family's affection for Christopher Stewart Shows is no more than a non-verbal assertion showing the family's belief in the paternity of the child. With this testimony Nora made an attempt to bind Vince by the actions of a third party, his family. Although the admission of Nora's testimony was error, we find that the lower court's action in admitting this evidence was not reversible error under the facts in this case. More specifically, Vince's rights were not violated by the admission of Nora's testimony. To the contrary, Vince's mother, Mrs. Sadie Thornton, was placed on the witness stand by Vince and allowed to clarify the actions of Vince's family in connection with the care and affection shown for Christopher Stewart Shows. Mrs. Thornton testified: Q: You're Ms. Sadie Thornton? A: Yes, sir. Q: And you are the mother of the Defendant  A: Right. Q: All right. And you are familiar with the fact that Ms. Shows gave birth to a male child in September of 1984, which is the subject of the action of this suit here? A: Yes, sir. Q: What is that child's name? A: Christopher. Q: Where did you first see the child? A: I was with her when she had the baby. Q: You were at the hospital in Jackson? A: Right. Q: And did you visit her from time to time after that? A: Right. Q: And has the child visited in your home? A: Many times. Q: And have you held the child and bought things for the child? A: Yes, sir. Q: Tell us why you did that, Ms. Thornton, and why you do it until this day? A: I thought that my son was the father up until I learned that  Q: Just a minute. You thought at one time that  A: At one time, I thought the child belonged to Vince. Q: Okay, but what I'm asking you  well, the question I asked you was why do you do it up until this date? A: Well, I love him. That didn't cause me not to love the child just because I found out  I feel different. Mrs. Thornton's testimony obviously clarifies that the family's actions were based on a mistaken belief that the child belonged to Vince. We hold that the testimony and clarification by Vince's mother prevents a miscarriage of justice by dispelling the inferences created by Nora Shows' testimony. It is well established in this state that when the appellant himself introduces evidence on the same proposition he is in no position to complain of the admission of similar testimony by the other party. See Deposit Guaranty Bank & Trust Co. v. Nelson, 54 So.2d 476 (Miss. 1951). Therefore, we find that Vince has waived his right to assign this issue on appeal.