Opinion ID: 1936097
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: whether the circuit court erred in allowing a witness for the prosecution to remain in the courtroom during trial proceedings

Text: Jackson contends that the presence of Sheriff Ricky Banks, a witness for the State, in the courtroom throughout the proceedings violated the rule of sequestration and warrants reversal of his convictions and sentences. The record indicates that Sheriff Banks left the courtroom during the testimony of investigating officer, Leflore County Chief Deputy Sheriff Jimmy Tindall, but that he was present during the testimony of Eddie Self, whose testimony, Jackson asserts, he was then called to rebut. Rule 615 of the Mississippi Rules of Evidence authorizes exclusion of witnesses from the courtroom to keep them from hearing testimony of other witnesses except for (1) a party who is a natural person, or (2) an officer or employee of a party which is not a natural person designated as its representative by its attorney, or (3) a person whose presence is shown by a party to be essential to the presentation of his cause. Miss.R.Evid. 615 (emphasis added). While Jackson asserts that the State made no request for the sheriff to be designated as its representative, the record shows that such request was, indeed, made by the State and granted by the circuit court. The State, therefore, contends that because Sheriff Banks was so designated, there is no merit to Jackson's argument. The Comment to Rule 615 notes that in each instance of exclusion, the person's presence must be `shown by a party to be essential to the presentation of his case.' Addressing the specific application of the Rule to sheriffs, we have held: The sheriff was not exempted from the Rule simply by virtue of his being the Sheriff, unless, under category (2) of the Rule's exceptions, the Sheriff is designated by the District Attorney as the state's representative because as the chief investigating officer in the case, his presence in the courtroom is necessary to assist the prosecution at trial. Douglas v. State, 525 So.2d 1312, 1316-1317 (Miss. 1988) (emphasis added). See also, Russell v. State, 607 So.2d 1107, 1113 (Miss. 1992) (quoting Douglas to find that presence of chief investigator at counsel table in capital murder case did not inject sympathy into the jury's decision). The State made no showing that Banks was the chief investigating officer in this case or that his presence was necessary to assist the prosecution at trial. The prosecutor merely stated, I just feel for security purposes the Sheriff should be allowed to remain. It appears to us that the State was attempting to circumvent the sequestration rule when it made the apparently impromptu decision to designate Sheriff Banks as its representative after Jackson raised an objection to his presence in the courtroom at the beginning of voir dire. However, in determining whether the circuit court abused its discretion in allowing him to testify, we have stated: We note that the majority of federal appellate courts have stated the test thus: failure of a judge to order a mistrial or to exclude testimony will not justify reversal on appeal absent a showing of prejudice sufficient to constitute abuse of discretion. U.S. v. Lassiter, 819 F.2d 84, 87 (5th Cir.1987); U.S. v. Buchanan, 787 F.2d 477, 485 (10th Cir.1986); U.S. v. Ortega-Chavez, 682 F.2d 1086, 1089 (5th Cir.1982); U.S. v. Warren, 578 F.2d 1058, 1076 (5th Cir.1978). Such a test is consistent with our unflagging support of the trial court's power to control the progress of a trial. Douglas, 525 So.2d at 1318. We will not per se reverse a trial court for failing to order a mistrial after a witness exclusion rule violation. The resultant degree of prejudice to the defendant must first demonstrate that the trial court abused its discretion. Baine v. State, 606 So.2d 1076, 1083 (Miss. 1992). See also, Gerrard v. State, 619 So.2d 212, 217 (Miss. 1993). While we find that the reasons for allowing Sheriff Banks to remain in the courtroom to be less than compelling, Jackson has failed to demonstrate any prejudice resulting from the sheriff's presence or his testimony. Banks' rebuttal of Self's testimony was limited to two questions which recounted his questioning of Self regarding the contents of the safe. Jackson's only objection to the testimony at trial was that it was hearsay. Chief Deputy Sheriff Tindall, whose testimony Sheriff Banks was not present for, recounted precisely the same details of the conversation the two had had with Self when opening the safe. Again, Jackson objected only on grounds of hearsay. We condone neither the State's efforts to thwart the purposes of the rule of sequestration nor the practice of allowing in the courtroom throughout the trial law enforcement officers who will be testifying in a case. However, there being no prejudice to Jackson in this particular case, we find that any error was harmless.