Opinion ID: 1796621
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Violation of the Confrontation Clause

Text: In addition to violating the Mississippi Rules of Evidence, admission of these hearsay statements also violated the confrontation clauses of the United States and Mississippi Constitutions. The confrontation clause acts to preserve the right of a criminal defendant to confront witnesses against him. U.S. Const. amend. VI; Miss. Const. art. 3, § 26. By its very definition, hearsay evidence prevents the exercise of this right. These confrontations clauses `are in a sense hearsay rules elevated to constitutional status' designed to prevent the admission of non-confronted out-of-court statements which lack reliability, are not made under oath, and deny the accused defendant the opportunity to cross-examine such a statement so as to test its truthfulness and reliability. Williamson v. State, 512 So.2d 868, 873 (Miss. 1987) (quoting Mitchell v. State, 495 So.2d 5, 8 (Miss. 1986)). Additionally, the confrontation clause acts so as to even restrict proof which under our evidence rules would be classified as `admissible hearsay.' Lanier, 533 So.2d at 488 (citation omitted). Hull was given no opportunity to cross-examine the declarants of these hearsay statements, thus violating the confrontation clause. Few doubt that the essence of confrontation is the right to cross-examine, that the best test of the truth of testimony is that it be cured in the crucible of cross-examination. Williams v. State, 595 So.2d 1299, 1307 (Miss. 1992) (citing Hall v. State, 539 So.2d 1338, 1346 (Miss. 1989); Prewitt v. State, 156 Miss. 731, 126 So. 824, 825 (1930)). Clearly, then, in this case the trial court's error in allowing inadmissable hearsay statements prevented Hull from exercising his constitutional right to confront these witnesses against him.