impeach in this manner and that the error violated his constitutional rights — specifically his right to a fair trial and his right to confront a witness against him. ¶ 15. Dr. Rusch testified that he had read Dr. Cox’s testimony, which he described as consistent with the letter in question “in an effort to form the basis of [his] opinion or assist [him] in basing an opinion.” M.R.E. 703 provides: The facts or data in the particular case upon which an expert bases an opinion or inference may be those perceived by or made known to him at or before the hearing. If of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in the particular field in forming opinions or inferences upon the subject, the facts or data need not be admissible in evidence. See, e.g., Jones v. State, 776 So.2d 643 (Miss.2000) (<HOLDING>). Testimony regarding Dr. Cox’s opinion was
holding that the victims prior videotaped testimony from a preliminary hearing was admissible as testimony at trial where the victim was unavailable to testify holding that testimony of pathologist that a forensic anthropologist confirmed his findings was admissible under mre 703 holding that even in separate trial other crimes evidence would not have been admissible and identification testimony would have been admissible holding that admission of hearsay testimony was harmless where the jury heard admissible testimony from three other sources to the same effect holding future dangerousness expert testimony to be admissible