Opinion ID: 1946583
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Did the trial court err in allowing Officer Nicky Hall to testify concerning the failure of the appellant to give a statement to the authorities following his arrest.

Text: During the state's redirect examination of Lee County Investigator Nicky Hall, the following colloquy took place: Q. You were asked on cross examination if he indicated any knowledge of the shooting, did you ask him about the shooting at any time? A. No, sir, not that night I didn't. Q. The next day? A. When I processed him, I gave him ample opportunity to give any type statement that he would like,  BY MR. JOHN BOOTH FARESE: Your Honor, we object to that. BY MR. JOHN FARESE: Your Honor, we object to that, he is not required to give any statement. BY JUDGE BIGGERS: Objection sustained. BY MR. YOUNG: Your Honor, the reason I asked him this question is that Mr. John Booth Farese brought this out on cross examination. BY MR. JOHN FARESE: Your Honor, I am going to object to any argument in the presence of the jury, the law is plain on that and we move for a mistrial in addition to our objection. BY JUDGE BIGGERS: I think it was adequately covered on cross examination, the witness answered the question about whether or not any statement was made, the objection will be sustained. BY MR. JOHN FARESE: Your Honor, will you rule on my motion for a mistrial? BY JUDGE BIGGERS: A motion for a mistrial will be overruled. Appellant contends that the comment by Officer Hall constitutes an impeachment of the appellant for exercising constitutional right to remain silent. Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610, 96 S.Ct. 2240, 49 L.Ed.2d 91 (1976). The state argues that the error, if any, was invited by the line of inquiry pursued by the defense counsel during the preceding cross-examination of Officer Hall: Q. Did you question him about the incident later? A. Yes, sir, when I processed him, I did. Q. Did he indicate that he had any knowledge of the shooting? A. He wouldn't say anything. Q. He didn't say anything? A. No, sir. Q. He gave you this permission to search, didn't he? A. Right. It is well settled that an attorney may not complain on appeal of an error which he invited at trial. Johnson v. State, 416 So.2d 679 (Miss. 1982); Reddix v. State, 381 So.2d 999 (Miss. 1980); Simpson v. State, 366 So.2d 1085 (Miss. 1979). Of equal importance, the trial court sustained appellant's objection to the comment by the witness. Appellant did not request the court to instruct the jury to disregard the question and answer. As a general rule, it is presumed that when the trial judge sustains objections the jury understands that the trial court disapproves of the testimony or inquiry in question. Holifield v. State, 275 So.2d 851 (Miss. 1973). This assignment of error is without merit.