Opinion ID: 1860641
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: whether the trial court abused its discretion in limiting duncan's cross-examination of dr. chouteau

Text: ¶ 22. Duncan's attorney began questioning Dr. Chouteau as his first witness, but interrupted that testimony to question Dr. Abrams because she had to return to her job in another state. After questioning Dr. Abrams, he resumed questioning Dr. Chouteau and later cross-examined him again following direct examination of Dr. Chouteau as a witness in his own case. The trial judge told counsel to move on twice stating you had this witness on the stand two and a half hours a day ago. This is a question period based on what he asked in his direct examination. I think you're a little bit out of field. The trial judge again told Duncan's attorney on two other occasions he was outside the scope of his examination. ¶ 23. The scope of cross-examination, though ordinarily broad, is within the sound discretion of the trial court and the trial court, possesses inherent power to limit cross-examination to relevant matters. Smith v. State 733 So.2d 793, 801 (Miss.1999) (citing Pace v. State, 473 So.2d 167 (Miss.1985); Dozier v. State, 257 So.2d 857 (Miss.1972)). As noted above, the trial transcript shows that most of the limitations with which Duncan brings issue pertain to the scope of questions asked during cross-examination. We find no abuse of discretion in the limitations placed by the trial judge. Therefore this issue is without merit.