Opinion ID: 1604196
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: the impermissible display of emotions during the testimony of mrs. hart violated state law and deprived ricky chase of a fundamentally fair trial.

Text: Doris Hart, the widow of Elmer Hart, was a key eyewitness to the murder. Prior to trial, Chase moved to enjoin victim's family and/or friends from showing emotion in the courtroom while sitting as spectators. The motion was granted. During the guilt phase, Doris Hart took the witness stand. During direct examination, Mrs. Hart began crying while describing what happened. Family members sitting in the courtroom also began crying. Defense counsel requested a bench conference and relying on his pre-trial motion to enjoin emotional displays, counsel moved for a mistrial. The trial judge overruled the motion and ruled that it was understandable under the circumstances for Mrs. Hart to be upset and that as far as the display of emotion by family members, the court found that it has no adverse or prejudicial effect on the jury. After a brief recess, Mrs. Hart continued her testimony. The question of emotional or crying witnesses has been addressed by this Court. In Ladner v. State, 584 So.2d 743 (Miss. 1991), the daughter of the murder victim, who also discovered her mother's body, testified at trial relative to the murder scene and surrounding conditions. On direct examination, she began to weep and the court recessed to allow her time to regain her composure. Ladner contended her emotional outburst was prejudicial and requested a mistrial. The request was denied. This Court held that the trial judge is in a better position to assess the effect of such an incident than is this Court on appeal, and this Court will not reverse on the failure to grant a mistrial unless the trial judge abused his discretion in overruling the motion for a mistrial. 584 So.2d at 753, citing Horne v. State, 487 So.2d 213, 214-215 (Miss. 1986). In the capital murder case of Evans v. State, 422 So.2d 737 (Miss. 1982), the victim's brother sobbed, cried and generally was emotional on the witness stand while giving testimony identifying the victim. This Court found that there was no reversible error in the jury hearing and seeing the family member's distress since the appellant caused the situation and cannot complain, if the evidence has probative value. 422 So.2d at 753. Mrs. Hart, as a witness to the crime, was a relevant and necessary witness. The need for her testimony outweighed any prejudicial effect caused by her display of emotion and that of other family members. When she began crying, the judge appropriately allowed a short recess for Mrs. Hart and the family to regain their composure. Out of the jury's presence the trial judge ably put it: It seems rather unfair to kill a woman's husband and then complain because she cries. There was no abuse of discretion by the court in refusing to grant the mistrial.