Opinion ID: 1712073
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Evidence of the Defendant's Theory of the Case.

Text: ¶ 7. Shaw contends that the trial court erred in denying him the opportunity to offer evidence concerning his theory of the case. Shaw attempted to call Ernest Champion (Champion), his stepfather, to establish hostility between Duffie and Joseph. According to Shaw, Duffie alleged that Joseph had burglarized his (Duffie's) girlfriend's home. Shaw argued at trial that Joseph killed Duffie and that the likely motive was hostility over the alleged burglary. The State moved in limine to prevent Shaw from offering hearsay testimony as to statements Duffie allegedly made to a third person. The trial court excluded the testimony as inadmissible hearsay. ¶ 8. Our standard of review for the admission or exclusion of evidence is very familiar. A trial judge enjoys a great deal of discretion as to the relevancy and admissibility of evidence. Unless the judge abuses this discretion so as to be prejudicial to the accused, the Court will not reverse this ruling. Jefferson v. State, 818 So.2d 1099, 1104 (Miss.2002) (quoting Fisher v. State, 690 So.2d 268, 274 (Miss.1996)). See also Hill v. State, 774 So.2d 441, 444 (Miss.2000); Crawford v. State, 754 So.2d 1211, 1215 (Miss.2000); Gilley v. State, 748 So.2d 123, 126 (Miss. 1999); Hughes v. State, 735 So.2d 238, 269 (Miss.1999). ¶ 9. Champion's proffered testimony was that approximately a week prior to the victim's death, Duffie confronted Joseph regarding the burglary. However, Shaw does not dispute that the proffered testimony was hearsay. Rather than arguing the evidentiary value of the statements, Shaw argues that the statements were a vital part of his defense. Shaw relies upon Minor v. State, 379 So.2d 495, 497 (Miss.1979), for the proposition that under the modern doctrine regarding the admissibility of evidence, a defendant should be allowed great latitude in the admission of evidence. Further, Shaw cites Terry v. State, 718 So.2d 1115, 1123 (Miss.1998), as an example of this Court's application of the Minor rule. ¶ 10. We recognize the Minor rule and its application to the admissibility of evidence in criminal cases. However, Shaw omits an essential component of the Minor rule which this Court explicitly set forth in Terry: All evidence that is proposed by either side to further its theory, hypothesis, or argument, must first comply with the Mississippi Rules of Evidence ... As stated earlier, the relevancy and admissibility of evidence are largely within the discretion of the trial judge and reversal is proper only where that discretion has been abused. Id. at 1122. Thus, here the trial court ruled that the proffered testimony was inadmissible hearsay under the Mississippi Rules of Evidence. To this end, we hold that with regard to the admissibility of evidence, a defendant's latitude to further his theory, hypothesis, or argument can never extend beyond the parameters of the M.R.E. See Lynch v. State, 877 So.2d 1254, 1282 (Miss.2004). To allow a defendant to introduce evidence, otherwise inadmissible under the M.R.E., in furtherance of his theory of the case would severely circumvent the purpose of our evidentiary rules. The exclusion of hearsay, even if it has some connection to the defendant's theory, is entirely proper. ¶ 11. A complete review of the record reveals that Shaw never denied that the statements proffered by Champion were hearsay. The State timely objected to any hearsay of what was said by the victim or what was said by a third person who was not present to testify pursuant to M.R.E. 801. Because Shaw never demonstrated the evidentiary admissibility of Champion's proffered testimony, we conclude that the trial court correctly ruled it as inadmissible hearsay. Therefore, the trial court was well within its discretion in excluding this proof.