Kirby v. State, 379 So.3d 915, 922 (¶12) (Miss. Ct. App. 2024) (quoting Eubanks v. State, 291 So.3d 309, 322-23 (¶51) (Miss. 2020)). As such, "[w]hen an officer's testimony is being used to explain why he did what he did in the course of his investigation, not to prove the truth of the matter asserted, then the testimony is not hearsay and is therefore admissible." Edwards v. State, 379 So.3d 906, 912 (¶23) (Miss. Ct. App. 2024) (quoting Dukes v. State, 369 So.3d 553, 562-63 (¶35) (Miss. 2023) (emphasis added)).
The testimony was also offered to show why Henry did what he did next—why he made an appointment for Mary at Forrest General Hospital. See Dunn v. State, 111 So.3d 114, 116 (¶7) (Miss. Ct. App. 2013) (holding that testimony was "not hearsay" because it "was offered to show the effect [of the out-of-court declarant's] statements on [the hearer/witness] and her actions thereafter"); cf. Dukes v. State, 369 So.3d 553, 562-63 (¶35) (Miss. 2023) ("When an officer's testimony is being used to explain why he did what he did in the course of his investigation, not to prove the truth of the matter asserted, then the testimony is not hearsay and is therefore admissible."). Because Henry's testimony about what Jane told him was not offered for the truth of the matter asserted, it was not hearsay.
"There is no reversible error where the court did all that it was asked to do." Dukes v. State, 369 So.3d 553, 561 (¶31) (Miss. 2023) (quoting Cotton v. State, 675 So.2d 308, 315 (Miss. 1996)).
As the Mississippi Supreme Court recently held, "[w]hen an officer’s testimony is being used to explain why he did what he did in the course of his investigation, not to prove the truth of the matter asserted, then the testimony is not hearsay and is therefore admissible." Dukes v. State, 369 So. 3d 553, 562-63 (¶35) (Miss. 2023).
"‘[T]he standard of review for evidentiary rulings is abuse of discretion[,]’" meaning we will "only overturn the trial court’s decision if it … was arbitrary and clearly erroneous." Dukes v. State, 369 So. 3d 553, 558 (¶13) (Miss. 2023) (quoting Cook v. State, 161 So. 3d 1057, 1065 (¶21) (Miss. 2015)). On appeal, "[e]videntiary rulings are affirmed unless they affect a substantial right of the complaining party."