Opinion ID: 1778765
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: Frank Parker:

Text: ś 77. Manning asserts that his impeachment of Parker was unfairly limited by the trial court. Frank Parker was the inmate in the Oktibbeha County jail who testified that he overheard Manning telling another inmate, Miami, that he didn't think he could be convicted of the crime and that he had sold the gun on the street. The defense sought to show that Parker had avoided liability for various crimes committed while he was in jail. The following exchange took place on cross-examination by defense counsel: Q: Since you've been in the jail, have youâ have you been charged with any crimes? A: No, sir. Q: Have you been accused ofâ A: No, sir. BY MR. ALLGOOD: If your Honor please, I'd object to what he'd been accused of in any event. BY THE COURT: Sustained. BY MR. WILLIAMSON: That's all I have, your Honor. ś 78. Generally, a witness should not be cross-examined regarding his involvement with crimes for which he has not been convicted, nor should he be impeached solely because he has been charged with a crime. Wilkins v. State, 603 So.2d 309, 323 (Miss. 1992). The trial court did not err in limiting the impeachment of Parker. Additionally, defense counsel again failed to make an offer of proof under Miss.R.Evid. 103(a)(2), and therefore this claim for error is procedurally barred.