Opinion ID: 1862228
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: REFUSAL TO PERMIT DEFENSE IMPEACHMENT OF McKENZIE

Text: McKenzie had been arrested and jailed on an unnatural intercourse charge. At the time of Wilkins' trial, he had not been convicted, and the record does not show whether he in fact had even been indicted. The State moved for and secured an order in limine preventing defense counsel from cross-examining McKenzie about this charge. Wilkins now claims that the court's refusal to permit him to attack McKenzie's credibility by asking him about this charge was error. In Blanks v. State, 451 So.2d 775, 778 (Miss. 1984), we held that a witness cannot be cross-examined regarding his involvement with crimes for which he has not been convicted, and in Vick v. Cochran, 316 So.2d 242, 251 (Miss. 1977), that a witness cannot be impeached by showing merely that he has been charged with a crime. Also, Barlow v. State, 233 So.2d 829, 832 (Miss. 1970). Even where a witness has been convicted of a crime, under Rule 609(a) of the MRE it is now discretionary with the trial court whether to permit cross-examination as to such conviction for impeachment purposes. Saucier v. State, 562 So.2d 1238, 1245 (Miss. 1990); McInnis v. State, 527 So.2d 84, 88 (Miss. 1988); Johnson v. State, 525 So.2d 809, 811 (Miss. 1988); Peterson v. State, 518 So.2d 632, 636 (Miss. 1987). Defense counsel offered no other purpose for attempting to cross-examine McKenzie than to impeach his credibility, and the court did not err in refusing to permit this line of cross-examination. REVERSED AND REMANDED. ROY NOBLE LEE, C.J., DAN M. LEE, P.J., and PRATHER, ROBERTSON, SULLIVAN, BANKS and McRAE, JJ., concur. PITTMAN, J., concurs in result only.