Case Name: Charlotte D. Ethridge BALL v. Laverne D. SLOAN
Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Mississippi
Decision Date: 1990-10-17
Citations: 569 So. 2d 1177
Docket Number: No. 07-CA-59649
Parties: Charlotte D. Ethridge BALL v. Laverne D. SLOAN.
Judges: ROY NOBLE LEE, C.J., and PRATHER, ROBERTSON, and ANDERSON, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 569
Pages: 1177–1181

Head Matter:
Charlotte D. Ethridge BALL v. Laverne D. SLOAN.
No. 07-CA-59649.
Supreme Court of Mississippi.
Oct. 17, 1990.
Rehearing Denied Nov. 21, 1990.
J. Dewayne Thomas, Roger K. Doolittle, Jackson, for appellant.
Mildred M. Morris, Jimmie B. Reynolds, Jr., Steen Reynolds Dalehite & Currie, Jackson, for appellee.

Opinion:
BLASS, Justice,
for the Court:
This case is an appeal from the Circuit Court of the First Judicial District of Hinds County and grew out of a two-car collision at an intersection in Jackson, Mississippi. The case was tried on August 4, 1988, and the jury returned a verdict for the defendant Sloan. The trial court overruled the motion for j.n.o.v. and for a new trial on August 31, 1988, and Ball has appealed.
Two issues are raised on the appeal. (1) Was Rule 608(b) M.R.E. violated? and (2) Did the trial court commit reversible error in overruling objections to defense counsel's closing argument?
Following the accident on September 30, 1986, plaintiff, Charlotte Ball, went to the Emergency Room at the Hinds General Hospital where she remained forty-five minutes to an hour. X-rays were taken and she was given a shot, presumably for pain. She had been involved in two previous wrecks while living in Ohio; one in 1977 and the other in 1981. She had received some injuries in 1977 which resulted in surgery.
After her visit to the emergency room, she saw her family physician, Dr. Patterson, who did an ultra-sound treatment on her and gave her some medication for muscle relaxing. Dr. Patterson sent her to Dr. Hodges, a neurosurgeon. He found nothing wrong with her. She returned to Dr. Patterson who put her in the hospital because her muscles were tense. Further x-rays were done and a CT Scan was made but these tests revealed nothing that could be causing the pain. She was then sent to Dr. Songcharoen, a specialist in arthritis. He found no cause for her pain and sent her to Dr. Stringer, a neurosurgeon. The tests he ran had normal results and he was unable to find the cause of her pain. In May of 1987, she employed an attorney who sent her to Dr. Foxworth, a chiropractor. After treating her two and a half weeks, he was unable to help her and referred her to Dr. Slipman. Dr. Slipman is described as a physician with a specialty in the treatment of chronic pain and he performed an electrodiagnostic test. She saw him for the first time on July 20, 1987, where she complained of persistent headaches, neck pain, upper back pain and low back pain, with other symptoms as well. She had not complained to any of the other doctors about headaches. Dr. Slipman placed her in the Methodist Rehabilitation Center for nineteen days and, at discharge she was "80% to 90% better in terms of her neck, upper and low back pain." The headaches persisted. Dr. Slipman referred her to Dr. Penzien at the Headache Clinic at University Medical Center. At the time of trial, she had not seen him.
Plaintiff experienced some numbness in her right hand and Dr. Slipman sent her to Dr. Gorman who determined that she was suffering from right Carpel Tunnel Syndrome. He performed surgery to correct that problem. Dr. Slipman testified that the Carpel Tunnel Syndrome could have resulted from the accident but Dr. Stringer testified that he had never seen it as a result of a single traumatic incident that did not involve a fracture of the wrist. Plaintiff claimed that she could not do her housework and that she had to stay in bed at least two days a week because of her headaches. A vocational rehabilitation counselor testified that she suffered wage loss, past and future, of $48,880. He pointed out, however, that Dr. Slipman was the only doctor who listed any restriction. The wage estimate was based on potential earnings because, at the time of the accident, Ball was unemployed. She had expected to start to work at a convenience store. According to counselor Brawner, she was capable of handling that position in her present state.
As stated above, the jury found for the defendant.
Addressing the evidence question first, the record shows that all of Ball's medical records, including clinical and laboratory reports, doctors' statements, and hospital records were introduced as a joint exhibit at the request of the plaintiff. One sheet that contained handwritten notations shows the following typed notation:
8-29-87: Pharmacist notified us that prescription for Tenuate has been altered to read #75 with refills.
Another sheet contains the following handwritten notation:
8-29-87
Altered prescription for Tenuate from 15 to 75 marked refills.
The only possible revelance of the testimony about altered prescriptions was that it might have had some bearing on the plaintiff's credibility. Under our rule, however, specific instances of conduct of a witness, other than the conviction of a crime, may not be proved by extrinsic evidence. Rule 608(b), M.R.E. This rule goes on to say, "it may, however, in the discretion of the court, if probative of truthfulness or untruthfulness, be inquired into on cross-examination of the witness (1) concerning his character for truthfulness or untruthfulness, or (2) concerning the character for truthfulness or untruthfulness of another witness as to which character the witness being cross-examined has testified." On cross-examination, defense counsel asked Ball if she had ever altered a prescription given her by one of the doctors. She testified that she had not. Under the strict language of the rule, and as this Court has interpreted it, the examination should have stopped, as to that issue, at that point. Pinson v. State, 518 So.2d 1220 (Miss.1988); United States v. Edwards, 549 F.2d 362 (5th Cir.1977). See also annotation, Construction and Application of Rule 608(b) of Federal Rules of Evidence, Dealing with Use of Specific Instances of Conduct to Attack or Support Credibility, 36 A.L.R.Fed. 564 (1978). The conduct of counsel for defense in proceeding further, including the calling of a pharmacist to testify that he had refused to fill two prescriptions for the plaintiff appears to us to be in the clear contravention of Rule 608(b), M.R.E. The trial judge was of the opinion, however, that the door was opened to this inquiry by the admission of the medical records, which contained a note on the alteration of a prescription.
In our view of this case, it is unnecessary for us to determine whether or not the "door was opened," because we are of the opinion that the error, if any, was harmless in the light of extensive medical evidence set out in the record. We note, also, in Rule 103(a), M.R.E., where it is stated: "Error may not be predicated upon a ruling which admits or excludes evidence unless a substantial right of a party is affected .". It was established that the prescriptions involved were for Tenuate, which is a diet drug or appetite suppressant and had nothing whatever to do with the plaintiff's alleged injuries. We do not see how any substantial right of the plaintiff was affected. There was clearly, however, sufficient evidence bearing on plaintiffs injuries or the lack thereof to support the verdict of the jury.
With regard to the second question, having to do with the argument of counsel, it is well settled in Mississippi that attorneys are afforded considerable latitude in their closing arguments. Copiah Dairies, Inc. v. Addkison, 247 Miss. 327, 153 So.2d 689 (1963); Shell Oil Co. v. Pou, 204 So.2d 155 (Miss.1967). Defense counsel did refer to the fact that the prescriptions had been altered which would have been better left unsaid. He also argued that no physician had found anything specific wrong with Ms. Ball, which was reasonably supported by the record. He stated that some people might say that this lawsuit was a lawyers' lawsuit'. We are unwilling to undertake to set specific and detailed limits on the argument which an attorney might make in this kind of lawsuit. We recognize that counsel, for both sides, are and are expected to be, partisan advocates and are of the opinion that the argument did not exceed the broad latitude allowed.
AFFIRMED.
ROY NOBLE LEE, C.J., and PRATHER, ROBERTSON, and ANDERSON, JJ., concur.
HAWKINS and DAN M. LEE, P.JJ., and SULLIVAN and PITTMAN, JJ., dissent.