Opinion ID: 1919348
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Introduction of the Actual Indictment During Cross-Examination of the Defendant

Text: ś 41. Hodges also claims that the trial court erred when it received into evidence the actual indictment for the previous burglary and sexual battery charge. Hodges argues that the indictment itself could not be used for impeachment or rebuttal and that its use violates with the rules of evidence. ś 42. On direct examination, during the sentencing phase, Hodges was asked it's true that in the past you've been charged with some other crimes, isn't it? Hodges answered this question saying that he had only been charged with one other crime, which was the burglary of Cora's house. Hodges testified that he was charged with that one other crime and he served his time in the RID program. On cross-examination, the State asked you testified that you were charged only with one charge; is that correct? Hodges again said that he had only been charged with one crime. The State then asked Hodges whether he recalled the other three crimes, the burglary of the school and the burglary and sexual assault of another female victim. Hodges said that he did not recall the three other crimes. The State then handed Hodges a copy of the indictment which showed one of the crimes and Hodges said that he did not recognize it. The State then showed Hodges another indictment which showed the burglary of the other victim's house and the attempted sexual battery of the other victim. Hodges then admitted that he was charged with these other crimes. The State moved to introduce these indictments into evidence in which the Court allowed. Hodges did not object to the introduction of these indictments. ś 43. If no contemporaneous objection is made, the error, if any, is waived. Walker v. State, 671 So.2d 581, 597 (Miss.1995) (citing Foster v. State, 639 So.2d at 1270). Since Hodges never objected to the introduction of these indictments, the issue is procedurally barred. Procedural bar aside, this issue is without merit. ś 44. Mississippi Rule of Evidence 608 provides in part: (b) Specific Instances of Conduct. Specific instances of the conduct of a witness, for the purpose of attacking or supporting his credibility, other than conviction of crime as provided in rule 609, may not be proved by extrinsic evidence. This Court has held that specific instances of conduct under our Rules of Evidence may not be proved by extrinsic evidence for impeachment purposes; they may only be inquired about on cross-examination. Jackson v. State, 645 So.2d 921, 923 (Miss.1994) (citing M.R.E. 609 & Lewis v. State, 580 So.2d 1279, 1287 (Miss. 1991) (emphasis omitted)). In Jackson, the State attempted to impeach a defense witness with extrinsic evidence of specific instances of that witness' conduct. 645 So.2d at 923. This Court held that such attempts at impeachment are clearly forbidden by Rule 608(b). Id. at 923-24. However, in Jackson, this Court held that the rule violation did not rise above harmless error. Id. at 924. We are not required to reverse a case based solely upon the showing of an error in evidentiary ruling. A denial of a substantial right of the defendant must have been affected by the evidentiary ruling . . . Id. (citing Newsom v. State, 629 So.2d 611, 612 (Miss. 1993)). ś 45. Although the introduction of the indictment was improper impeachment evidence, such error was harmless. The jury, on many previous occasions throughout the sentencing phase, heard testimony regarding these other crimes. Hodges was not denied a substantial right by the introduction of this indictment. ś 46. The State argues that the introduction of this indictment was not improper because it was used to rebut Hodges' inferences and direct statements that his prior criminal history was insignificant. Indeed, this Court has held that [t]he State is allowed to rebut mitigating evidence through cross-examination, introduction of rebuttal evidence or by argument. Wiley v. State, 750 So.2d 1193, 1202 (Miss. 1999) (quoting Turner v. State, 732 So.2d at 950). ś 47. Notwithstanding the procedural bar, this issue is without merit.