YOUR HONOR, HE SAID YESTERDAY THAT IT WAS ALWAYS FINE FOR HIM TO DROP OVER TO MR. SIMPSON'S HOUSE UNANNOUNCED, SUGGESTING THAT THAT WAS THE QUALITY OF THEIR FRIENDSHIP. THIS YEAR -- LAST YEAR MISS RANDA HAD A CONVERSATION WITH MR. SHIPP WHEN SHE ASKED MR. SHIPP TO NOT KEEP DROPPING BY, COMING OVER, PLAYING TENNIS, BECAUSE HE WAS CREATING A DISTURBANCE AND MR. SIMPSON DIDN'T WANT THAT TO OCCUR. MISS RANDA WILL TESTIFY THAT IT GOES TO HIS STATE OF MIND, IT GOES TO CHALLENGE THE ACCURACY OF A STATEMENT THAT HE MAKES. IF HE DENIES IT, I CAN ARGUE IT, AND IF HE ACKNOWLEDGES IT, I CAN ARGUE IT ACCORDINGLY. IT IS DIRECTLY CONTRADICTING HIS SUGGESTION THAT HE HAD FREE REIGN TO THE PREMISES.
THAT IS WHY WE HAVE WITNESSES AND DECLARANTS AND THAT IS WHY WE HAVE THE WITNESS DECLARANTS COME TO COURT AND TESTIFY. DO YOU REMEMBER THE TIME WHEN SHE TOLD YOU THIS? THAT CALLS FOR HEARSAY.
IT IS NOT OFFERED FOR THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER. IT IS OFFERED FOR HIS STATE OF MIND.
KEY QUOTEKEEP YOUR VOICE DOWN. THE OBJECTION IS OVERRULED, BUT SEVERELY LIMITED; TWO QUESTIONS.
NO. WERE YOU EVER ADVISED DURING THE COURSE NOT TO DO THIS? YES OR NO. ALL RIGHT. MAYBE ONE FOLLOW-UP QUESTION.
IT IS DIRECTLY CONTRADICTING HIS SUGGESTION THAT HE HAD FREE REIGN TO THE PREMISES.
IT IS NOT OFFERED FOR THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER. IT IS OFFERED FOR HIS STATE OF MIND.
THE OBJECTION IS OVERRULED, BUT SEVERELY LIMITED; TWO QUESTIONS.