Opinion ID: 1671742
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: whether the trial court erred in failing to allow defense counsel a full opportunity to cross-examine sam smith.

Text: ¶ 32. At the time of the 1991 elections, Sam Smith was the Circuit Clerk of Wilkinson County, whose duty it was to register voters, maintain the voting rolls and oversee the elections. Mr. Smith was not indicted for any criminal violations in connection with the September and October 1991 elections. The State called Mr. Smith to testify regarding his office's procedures for sending out, receiving and handling absentee ballot applications and absentee ballots, and to testify that the people whose ballot application signatures McFarland was charged with signing were registered voters. During cross examination of Mr. Smith, the following exchange occurred: [MR. SWEET:] My question to you is this: if somebody called you on the phone, you may not know  may not recognize that person's voice, and you may not know who it is except for who they tell you it is; isn't that right? A. That's correct. Q. But you would send a ballot anyway? A. That's correct. Q. Have you been indicted for what is it sixty or seventy times you did that? MR. EMFINGER: Your Honor, I object; this defendant is not on trial here today. THE COURT: And I sustain the objection. Now, you ask the questions and you let him answer them, and stick to this case. This case. MR. SWEET: Your Honor, he raised the question. THE COURT: You ask the questions and let the witness answer them; that's the process of court rules. MR. SWEET: I understand that  THE COURT: You abide by the rules; just go ahead and ask the questions. MR. SWEET: Your Honor, the only thing I was going to  he asked him about the practice of the Circuit Clerk's office. THE COURT: Well, you ask him questions, and I will require him to answer them if they're relevant; go ahead and ask the question. McFarland argues that the trial court erred in failing to allow defense counsel to fully question Mr. Smith regarding any favorable treatment by the State so as to demonstrate Mr. Smith's possible bias in testifying for the State. ¶ 33. Mississippi Rule of Evidence 611(b) allows wide open cross examination of witnesses, and Rule 616 allows evidence of bias for the purpose of attacking the credibility of a witness. Evidence that a material witness has received favored treatment at the hands of law enforcement authorities, particularly where that witness is himself subject to prosecution, is probative of the witness' interest or bias and may be developed through cross-examination or otherwise presented to the jury. Suan v. State, 511 So.2d 144, 147-48 (Miss. 1987). Therefore, defense counsel may have had a colorable argument that he should have been permitted to question Mr. Smith regarding any favorable treatment by the State. However, the defense failed to make a proffer at trial, and has failed to demonstrate in its brief, that Mr. Smith was subject to prosecution for the sixty or seventy instances in which he sent out applications and ballots after having received requests over the telephone. In fact, defense counsel did not even make this argument at trial. ¶ 34. After the trial court sustained the State's objection, defense counsel stated that the only thing I was going to  he asked him about the practice of the Circuit clerk's office. The record reflects that defense counsel conducted extensive cross examination of Mr. Smith regarding the practice of the Circuit Clerk's office, and that defense counsel was not limited in this regard. Because McFarland failed at trial to make a proffer or even to argue that Mr. Smith received favorable treatment from the State, we find that any error was not properly preserved for review.