Opinion ID: 1772790
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 14

Heading: was it error to sustain objections to questions of a witness about johnson's mental or emotional problems?

Text: Upon cross-examination of the witness Sturdivant, a neighbor of Johnson's, her lawyer asked if Sturdivant knew that Johnson had some kind of mental or emotional problems. The state's objection was sustained. After argument outside the presence of the jury, the court again sustained the objection, ruling that Johnson's lawyer must first establish a factual basis observed by the witness before asking the witness if he had an opinion based upon those facts. The jury then returned and questioning was resumed. Eventually Sturdivant was asked if he had ever observed anything about Johnson that he considered abnormal or unusual. Sturdivant responded that he had. He said Johnson had acted strange since her return to Mississippi from Illinois. Sturdivant then said he followed Johnson up the stairs to her apartment on the day of Ceddrick's death because he knew something was wrong with her. This line of questioning was then abandoned by Johnson's lawyer. Our rule on this issue is to be found in Alexander v. State, 358 So.2d 379, 384 (Miss. 1978), wherein we said: The correct rule, therefore, is that a lay witness may express an opinion that another is insane only when a sufficient predicate has been laid to establish that: (1) the witness has had a reasonably sufficient opportunity to observe the subject and (2) has noted his behavior on his part reasonably indicative of an unsound mind and upon which he bases an opinion that the subject was, at the time of his observation by the witness, of unsound mind... . Moreover, before being permitted to express an opinion, the witness must have articulated specific facts concerning observed behavior on the part of the subject sufficient to serve as a predicate for his opinion, and such observed facts must be of a character capable of forming a reasonable basis for an opinion of insanity. See also Edwards v. State, 441 So.2d 84 (Miss. 1983); Palmer v. State, 427 So.2d 111 (1983); Genna v. Harrington, 254 So.2d 525 (Miss. 1971); In Re Estate of Prine, 208 So.2d 187 (Miss. 1968); Harvey v. State, 207 So.2d 108 (Miss. 1968). The trial judge correctly applied the law, and the lawyer for Johnson was not precluded from questioning Sturdivant. There is no merit to this assignment.