Opinion ID: 1859463
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: whether the trial court erred in restricting the defense's cross examination and impeachment of lt. burleson.

Text: ¶ 20. The scope of cross-examination is ordinarily broad, although the trial court in its discretion has the inherent power to limit cross-examination to relevant matters. Banks v. State, 631 So.2d 748, 750 (Miss.1994); Sayles v. State, 552 So.2d 1383, 1387 (Miss.1989). Also, under M.R.E. 103(a), before error can be predicated at all upon an adverse evidentiary ruling it must appear that a substantial right of the party is affected. Banks, 631 So.2d at 750; Sayles, 552 So.2d at 1387. ¶ 21. Mixon claims that the trial court thwarted his every effort to arrive at the truth through cross-examination of Lt. Burleson. The trial court made it clear during a bench conference that defense counsel would be able to impeach Lt. Burleson with prior statements. While the trial court sustained many of the State's objections, it also overruled many of them. The trial court even limited the State during re-direct. Defense counsel included in his closing argument all of the discrepancies in Lt. Burleson's testimony. ¶ 22. Lt. Burleson's cross-examination was not limited as to content. Even though Mixon claims that the trial court limited counsel by forbidding him from asking about the first suppression hearing, a full reading of the trial court's statements in context clearly shows such was not the case: Ask him a question, and if his response differs from a prior statement, then you can bring that up.    You haven't asked that question independent of a prior hearing. Just ask the question and whatever his response is, if it differs from his prior statement, then we can go into it, but just ask the question.    No. Don't even go into the February 5th [suppression hearing]. Just ask him a question, and if it differs from any prior statement, then we will go into it.    [To Lt. Burleson:] Don't say what your response was. Forget about any February statement at thisfor this question. Mr. Berry [defense counsel] is just to ask a question and give a response. [To Mr. Berry:] And if it is different from a prior statement that he has given, Mr. Berry, then you can go into it. It is real simple. ¶ 23. Because Mixon was allowed to fully cross-examine Lt. Burleson as to content and because defense counsel was able to point out all of the discrepancies in Lt. Burleson's testimony to the jury, we find that Mixon's right to cross-examine the witness against him was not abridged in any way, even though the trial court admonished defense counsel not to refer to the suppression hearing. This claim is without merit.