Opinion ID: 1687603
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The trial judge's denial of defense's motion for mistrial.

Text: ¶ 19. Cavett next asserts that the trial judge should have granted a mistrial during the State's redirect examination of Calvin Shelton. Shelton was in Cavett's car the night of Brown's murder. He was indicted with Cavett, Stevens, and Strahan, but he was not tried with them. He testified against all of them at trial. On cross-examination, the defense questioned Shelton at length regarding his motives for testifying. During the State's redirect examination of Shelton, the following transpired: [ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY]: Has either one of these defendants tried to threaten or intimidate you at any  [CAVETT'S ATTORNEY]: Your Honor  [ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY]:  time after the shooting that night? A. No, ma'am. Q. Have you ever told Detective Wade or anyone that they did? A. Yes, ma'am. Q. Who did you make such a statement to? A. Detective Wade. Q. What did you tell Detective Wade that had happened? A. I told Detective Wade that Glynn [Stevens] and Pat [Cavett] had threatened me. [STEVENS' ATTORNEY]: May we approach the bench, Your Honor? THE COURT: You may. (OFF THE RECORD DISCUSSION AT THE BENCH) THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen, let me ask you to please be excused for a few moments while we take up a legal matter. ¶ 20. Thereafter, a lengthy discussion was had, during which defense counsel argued for a mistrial. The trial judge denied the motion for a mistrial, but allowed the defense attorneys to recross-examine Shelton. The trial judge ruled that the State's line of questioning was improper redirect, but that the defense attorneys had not objected and had allowed the evidence to be elicited. ¶ 21. The record reflects that Cavett's attorney said Your Honor during the State's line of questioning, but did not say anything further. Unless timely and specific objection is made to allegedly improper testimony, the objection is deemed waived and may not be raised on appeal. Hall v. State, 691 So.2d 415, 418 (Miss.1997) (emphasis added) (quoting McQuarter v. State, 574 So.2d 685, 688 (Miss.1990)). Moreover, although the trial judge ruled to the contrary, the prosecutor's questions were proper redirect examination. ¶ 22. That is, [t]he defense opened the door to the questions asked and the answers given on re-direct. See Id. The defense questioned Shelton at length about his motivation to testify in favor of the State. In so doing, the defense opened the door for questions on redirect examination regarding Shelton's motives for testifying against the State (i.e.: he had been threatened to keep his mouth closed). The trial court has broad discretion in allowing or disallowing redirect examination of witnesses. When the defense attorney inquires into a subject on cross-examination of the State's witness, the prosecutor on rebuttal is unquestionably entitled to elaborate on the matter. ... Because these matters were all brought out on cross-examination, we find the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing redirect examination on the matters. Beckwith, 707 So.2d at 591 (citations omitted). ¶ 23. Thus, no specific objection was made as the evidence was being elicited, and the questions were proper. In addition, the defense attorneys were allowed to recross-examine Shelton on this matter. Therefore, Cavett's argument on this point is without merit.