Opinion ID: 1784340
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: First Alleged Error

Text: During cross-examination of Douglas, Holland asked: Did you [Douglas] ever tell [Lester Thompson, a polygrapher] that it was on [his] mind to have sex with Krystal? Douglas emphatically and repeatedly said, No. For impeachment purposes, Holland requested that he be allowed to call to the stand Lester Thompson, who allegedly would testify that Douglas had once told him that he thought it would be nice to have sex with Krystal. The State objected on the basis of irrelevancy, and the trial judge after much debate denied Holland's request. See generally Vol. IX, at 1503-13; Vol. XIII, at 2265-70. Holland now questions this denial. This Court has held that in laying the predicate to introduce prior inconsistent statements ... the statement made in court [must be] relevant to the issue in the case and therefore not collateral. Carlisle v. State, 348 So.2d 765, 766 (Miss. 1977) (citing cases); accord Harrison v. State, 534 So.2d 175, 178 (Miss. 1988). Clearly, Douglas' alleged sexual fantasies about Krystal have no relevance to the issue of whether Holland raped Krystal. In sum, Holland was on trial  not Douglas. The testimony which Holland attempted to elicit was irrelevant to proving or disproving guilt and, therefore, the judge properly sustained the State's objection.