hearsay rule in Mississippi

2018However, the Mississippi Supreme Court has cautioned that the "catch-all exception should be carefully considered and applied rarely, so as not to devour the hearsay rule." Bailey v. Woodcock (In re Interest of C.B.) , 574 So.2d 1369 , 1373 (Miss. 1990) (citing Mitchell v. State , 539 So.2d 1366 , 1370 (Miss. 1989) ).

2007First, the comment to Rule 803(24) indicates that the catch-all provision should not be utilized with “unfettered discretion which could ultimately devour the hearsay rule.” See also Mitchell v. State, 539 So.2d 1366, 1370 (Miss.1989) (stating that “use of the ‘catchall’ should be carefully considered and applied rarely, so as not to devour the hearsay rule”).

2009"The hearsay rule and its exceptions effect a delicate balance between the twin towering goals of the trial process: truth and fairness." Hall v. State, 539 So.2d 1338, 1346 (Miss.1989).

2009“The hearsay rule and its exceptions effect a delicate balance between the twin towering goals of the trial process: truth and fairness.” Hall v. State, 539 So.2d 1338, 1346 (Miss.1989).

2006It recognized that not every contingency can be treated by detailed rules, that the hearsay rule has never been a closed system and should not be (for it would be pre-sumptuous to assume that all possibilities and new developments have been foreseen), and that, in a particular case, hearsay evidence which does not fall within one of the exceptions may *199 have greater probative value than evidence which does. 548 So.2d 389, 401 (Miss.1989) (citing J.

1999In Leatherwood v. State, 548 So.2d 389 (Miss.1989), this Court held that since there was no tender years exception to the hearsay rule when the defendant was tried due to the subsequent adoption of the Mississippi Rules of Evidence, the trial court should have first made a determination as to whether hearsay testimony not otherwise admissible under the rules governing exceptions to hearsay could qualify under residual hearsay exception.

2024“Even though police reports, if offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted are hearsay and the information within them may be based on hearsay, they may be admissible under the hearsay exception in [Mississippi Rule of Evidence] 803(8).” Rebelwood Apartments RP, LP v. English, 48 So. 3d 483, 491 (¶36) (Miss. 2010).

2022“Even though police reports, if offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted are hearsay and the information within them may be based on 14 hearsay, they may be admissible under the hearsay exception in Rule 803(8).” Rebelwood, 48 So. 3d at 491 .

2015Hull argues the same distinction as the dissent in Birkhead v. State, 57 So.3d 1223, 1243-44 (¶ 79) (Miss.2011): “the death certificate itself is excepted from the hearsay rule as a record of a vital statistic”; yet the “contents of the death certificate, however, still are subject to the rules of evidence,” and Rule 805 would exclude the contents as hearsay within hearsay.

2015Evidence admitted through a hearsay exception is still under Confrontátion Clause scrutiny." Birkhead, 57 So.3d at 1233 (¶ 36).

1995In these unique circumstances, "the hearsay rule may not be applied mechanistically to defeat the ends of justice." Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 302 [ 93 S.Ct. 1038, 1049 , 35 L.Ed.2d 297 ] (1973).

1995In these unique circumstances, "the hearsay rule may not be applied mechanistically to defeat the ends of justice." Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 302 [ 93 S.Ct. 1038, 1049 , 35 L.Ed.2d 297 ] (1973).

2026“When reviewing a hearsay challenge, this Court applies the abuse-of-discretion standard.” Augustine v. State, 337 So. 3d 646 , 649 (Miss. 2022) (citing White v. State, 48 So. 3d 454, 456 (Miss. 2010)).

2023“When reviewing a hearsay challenge, this Court applies the abuse-of-discretion standard.” Augustine v. State, 337 So. 3d 646 , 649 (Miss. 2022) (citing White v. State, 48 So. 3d 454, 456 (Miss. 2010)).

2016Flowers v. State, 773 So. 2d 309, 326 (¶58) (Miss. 2000). ¶135.

2016Flowers v. State, 773 So.2d 309, 326 (¶ 58) (Miss.2000). ¶ 135.

2006In Clark v. State, 693 So.2d 927, 932 (Miss.1997), the Mississippi Supreme Court held that the transcript of the victim’s 911 call to the emergency operator fell within the present sense impression to the hearsay rule, because the events leading up to the call were sufficiently contemporaneous to fit within the exception. ¶ 13.

2006The Mississippi Supreme Court in Clark held that the transcript of the 911 call also fell within the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule “since it relates to the events that were unfolding as it was made, it was made while Meunier [the victim] was in an excited state, and it was made contemporaneously with the event.” Id.

2008Before admitting testimony pursuant to Rule 803(4), the statement must pass a two-part test: (1) "the declarant's motive in making the statement must be consistent with the purposes of promoting treatment" and (2) "the content of the statement must be such as is reasonably relied on by a physician in treatment." Davis v. State, 878 So.2d 1020, 1024 (12) (Miss.Ct.App.2004) (quoting Doe v. Doe, 644 So.2d 1199, 1205-06 (Miss.1994)).

2005The record shows that the circuit judge held a hearing and found, based upon the factors enumerated in Idaho v. Wright, 497 U.S. at 822 , 110 S.Ct. 3139 , and adopted by this Court in Doe v. Doe, 644 So.2d 1199, 1206 (Miss.1994), that there were indicia of reliability.

2001This notice should be given "sufficiently in advance of the trial or hearing to provide ... a fair opportunity to meet it. ...." United States v. Mathis, 559 F.2d 294, 299 (5th Cir.1977).

1987In the absence of specific findings that the other requirements were fulfilled it was error to admit this evidence under the residual exception to the hearsay rule. [6] In United States v. Mathis, supra , the Fifth Circuit has recognized a preference for live testimony over hearsay testimony by an out of court declarant.

2024Once again, the trial court overruled the objection. 11 with the witnesses against him’”); see also Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 59 (2004) (recognizing “Testimonial statements of witnesses absent from trial have been admitted only where the declarant is unavailable, and only where the defendant has had a prior opportunity to cross-examine”).

2020For “there is scant evidence that [hearsay] exceptions were invoked to admit testimonial statements against the accused in a criminal case.” Crawford, 541 U.S. at 56 .

2008Cummins v. State[, 515 So.2d 869 (Miss.1987)], [an] '87 case, addressed the hearsay rule, as well as Randall v. State[, 806 So.2d 185 (Miss.2001) ], which is a 2001 case.

2008Cummins v. State [, 515 So.2d 869 (Miss. 1987)], [an] '87 case, addressed the hearsay rule, as well as Randall v. State [, 806 So.2d 185 (Miss.2001) ], which is a 2001 case.

2022Under Rebelwood, “[a] conclusion in a police report may be admitted if ‘based on a factual investigation and [it] satisfies . . . [Rule 803(8)]’s trustworthiness requirement.’” Id. at 493 (second alteration in original) (quoting Fleming v. Floyd, 969 So. 2d 881, 885 (Miss.

2021A police report may be admissible under the hearsay exception in Mississippi Rule of Evidence 803(8) if the report is “based on a factual investigation and it satisfies the Rule’s trustworthiness requirement.” Rebelwood Apartments LP v. English, 48 So. 3d 483, 493 (¶42) (Miss. 2010) (quoting Fleming v. Floyd, 969 So. 2d 881, 885 (¶18) (Miss.

2015See Brown v. State, 890 So.2d 901, 914-15 (¶¶ 44-45) (Miss.2004) (witness’s hearsay statement allowed when he was able to form an opinion on the victim’s and defendant’s emotional states).

2015See Brown v. State, 890 So. 2d 901, 914-15 (¶¶44-45) (Miss. 2004) (witness’s hearsay statement allowed when he was able to form an opinion on the victim’s and defendant’s emotional states).

2005Baine v. State, 606 So.2d 1076, 1079 (Miss.1992).

2002Baine v. State, 606 So.2d 1076, 1079 (Miss.1992).

2000The court in Harkins v. State, 735 So.2d 317, 319-320 (Miss.1999) concluded that the actions of a calibration officer in performing his customary role of certifying the calibration of intoxilyzers properly fall under the business records exception to the hearsay rule in Rule 803(6), unless "the source of information or the method or circumstances of preparation indicate lack of trustworthiness." ¶ 16.

2000A recent decision by this Court in Harkins v. State, 735 So.2d 317, 321 (Miss. 1999), held that "the admission of calibration certificates without testimony from the calibration officer does not, in general, violate either the hearsay rule or the confrontation clauses in the Mississippi or United States constitutions, as long as the proper foundation is laid." In the case sub judice, the business ledger qualified under Rule 803(6) as data kept in the regular course of business.

1999See also Brent v. State, 632 So.2d 936, 942 (Miss.1994) (“[bjefore allowing a child witness to testify, the trial judge should determine ‘that the child has ability to perceive and remember events, to understand and answer questions intelligently and to comprehend and accept the importance of truthfulness’ ”). ¶ 152.

1999See also Brent v. State, 632 So.2d 936, 942 (Miss.1994) ("[b]efore allowing a child witness to testify, the trial judge should determine `that the child has ability to perceive and remember events, to understand and answer questions intelligently and to comprehend and accept the importance of truthfulness'"). ś 152.

1991This time the state cited the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule as well as the case of Cunningham v. State, 467 So.2d 902 (Miss. 1986), one of the pre-rules cases.

1989Thereafter, in Cunningham v. State, 467 So.2d 902 (Miss. 1986), a rape case with *399 an adult victim, we broadened the hearsay exception in such cases by holding that where the usual criteria for admitting hearsay testimony of a rape victim were met, it was not objectionable that the victim's statement also identified the attacker.

2024“Although admissible, a trial court need not admit a report in whole or in part, where the sources of information or other circumstances indicate a lack of trustworthiness.” Id. (quoting Beech Aircraft Corp. v. Rainey, 488 U.S. 153 , 162 n.6, 167-68 (1988)). ¶21.

2020Id. at 491-94 (¶¶35-47).6 As to the first issue, the Supreme Court stated that “[e]ven though police reports, if offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted are hearsay . . . , they may be admissible under the hearsay exception in Rule 803(8).” Id. at 491 (¶36) (citing Beech Aircraft Corp. v. Rainey, 488 U.S. 153 , 162 n.6, 167-68 (1988)).

2020Copeland v. City of Jackson, 548 So. 2d 970, 975 (Miss. 1989).

2010See Beech Aircraft Corp. v. Rainey, 488 U.S. 153 , 162 n. 6, 167-68, 109 S.Ct. 439, 446, 448-49 , 102 L.Ed.2d 445 (1988); Copeland v. City of Jackson, 548 So.2d 970, 975 (Miss.1989).

2019Murphy v. State, 453 So. 2d 1290, 1294 (Miss. 1984).

2009In Murphy v. State, 453 So.2d 1290, 1293 (Miss.1984), the supreme court held that the defendant was not procedurally barred from arguing that testimony was inadmissable even though the grounds for the objection were not stated because “it [was] obvious from the response of the prosecutor and the ruling of the trial judge, as well as the totality of the setting in which these objections were interposed, that everyone clearly understood that the objection was based upon the hearsay rule.” ¶ 59.

2002The general requirements concerning the admissibility of dying declarations can be found in Watts v. State, 492 So.2d 1281, 1287 (Miss.1986), where our supreme court set forth specific requirements for dying declarations which includes: (a) the wounded person is in extremis and dies after making the statement, (b) the person realizes that he is mortally wounded, and (c) he has no hope of recovery.

1995Watts v. State, 492 So. 2d 1281, 1287 (Miss. 1986).