Opinion ID: 1709217
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: did the prosecutor impermissibly prejudice simpson by his cross-examination of simpson's character witnesses?

Text: After two of the defendant's character witnesses testified, the prosecutor cross-examined them as to whether their opinions of Simpson would be the same if they knew he had shot a man in the leg. The appellant's brief characterizes this questioning as involving a fact not in evidence and one denied by the Defendant... . However, the record shows that, during cross-examination, Simpson admitted that I did shoot a man in the leg. He later went on to state that I was never convicted of that that I know of. During cross-examination of Simpson's witness, Bob Patterson, the prosecutor asked Mr. Patterson, you are aware that the Defendant had shot a man in the leg in 1978? During cross-examination of Trent Medlock, another character witness, the prosecutor asked Had you heard in 1978 Pete Simpson had also shot another man? In White v. State, 290 So.2d 616 (Miss. 1974), this Court held that under appropriate circumstances, character witnesses may be cross-examined to test their good faith and credibility by asking about reports or rumors of particular acts imputed to the defendant... . Id. at 618. A detailed discussion of this point appears in the case of Magee v. State, 198 Miss. 642, 22 So.2d 245 (1945), in which the Court held that Where the defendant introduces witnesses to prove his character as to the trait charged agains [sic] him in the indictment ... the state may, on cross-examination of such witnesses, ask them if they had heard charges of that kind against him before. 198 Miss. at 647, 22 So.2d at 247. See also Rule 405(b), Miss.R.Evid., In cases in which character or a trait of character of a person is an essential element of a charge, claim, or defense, proof may also be made of specific instances of his conduct. There is no merit to this assignment.