Opinion ID: 1849099
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: whether the circuit court erred in limiting the cross-examination of state's witness teronda berry, concerning the inconsistencies in her statements at trial and in prior, recorded statements.

Text: ś 28. This issue is not properly before the Court pursuant to M.R.A.P 28(a)(6) which states that an argument in the appellate's brief shall contain the contentions of appellant with respect to the issue presented, and the reasons for those contentions, with citations to the authorities, statutes, and parts of the record relied upon. See also Hoops v. State, 681 So.2d 521, 535 (Miss.1996); Pate v. State, 419 So.2d 1324, 1325-26 (Miss.1982). Conley has failed to cite any specific instance in the record where the trial court limited the cross-examination of Teronda. ś 29. The record indicates that Conley was given wide latitude in his cross-examination of Teronda and that he was specifically permitted to question her on the inconsistencies of her prior statements. The record contains over sixty-five pages of the cross-examination of Teronda where defense counsel drilled Teronda on the inconsistencies of her statements and forced her time and time again to admit she had previously lied. The record shows that it was during this cross-examination that Teronda first admitted that she was covering for Conley because she cared for him. Conley does not cite any specific instance in the record where cross-examination was limited because it simply did not occur. This argument is contrary to the record and without merit.