Opinion ID: 1792134
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Did the trial court err in denying Hersick's Motion in Limine?

Text: ¶ 38. Hersick contends that the trial court's denial of his motion in limine resulted in the jury hearing his misleading and ambiguous statement to the Lucedale Police Department at the time of his booking. ¶ 39. The record reflects that, during the booking process, Hersick allegedly said, I want to know what happens to little girl snatchers in this town. Hersick filed a motion in limine regarding this statement, arguing that if presented to the jury it would have a prejudicial effect beyond any probative value, thus violating M.R.E. 401, 402 and 403. ¶ 40. In denying the motion in limine, the trial court stated: All right, I'm going to deny this part of the Motion in Limine. The Court will find that these statements were spontaneous, not in response to questioning, and therefore they were initiated by the defendant, and would not be subject to the Miranda ruling. Further, the statements would appear to be relevant insofar as they may be considered as an admission, and that the relevant probative value would outweigh any prejudicial effect. So I'll deny the motion. ¶ 41. Hersick argues that his statement was ambiguous, at best, was not an admission, and was only made after he was informed he was being charged with kidnaping. Hersick further claims that the statement was not relevant; and therefore, the trial court abused its discretion and committed reversible error. The State contends that the statement meets the M.R.E. 401 standard. When reviewing motions in limine, this Court applies the following standard: [A] motion in limine `should be granted only when the trial court finds two factors are present: (1) the material or evidence in question will be inadmissible at a trial under the rules of evidence; and (2) the mere offer, reference, or statements made during trial concerning the material will tend to prejudice the jury.' McGilberry v. State, 797 So.2d 940, 942 (Miss.2001) (quoting Whittley v. City of Meridian, 530 So.2d 1341, 1344 (Miss.1988)). ¶ 42. Hersick's statement was admissible as a voluntary, spontaneous statement. We cannot say the trial court abused its discretion in finding the probative value outweighed the potential prejudice. Thus, this issue is without merit.