Opinion ID: 1846260
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: whether kolberg was permitted to properly cross-examine each state witness.

Text: ¶ 142. Kolberg next raises error with what he argues was improper cross-examination of one of his expert witnesses. Basically, he asserts that he was improperly limited in his cross-examination of Dr. Michael Vise, but that the trial judge did not apply the same rule to the State. As Kolberg's arguments regarding the cross-examination of Dr. Vise have already been discussed in section VII B, above, we will not revisit it again, although Kolberg attempts to do so. ¶ 143. The State asked A.K. Rosenhan, Kolberg's biomechanics expert, the following: Q. Now, do you remember, Mr. Rosenhan, testifying again in Oktibbeha County in a case style Upchurch v. Rottenberry? Do you remember that? A. Yes, sir. That was an automobile accident.    Q. And is it true, Mr. Rosenhan, that in that testimony after an overnight recess you went back into court and completely turned your testimony around with respect to what you smelled? Smelling alcohol? Kolberg did not object to this line of questioning until the State attempted to have the witness read a portion of the case from the Southern Reporter. Defense counsel's basis for the objection was: He can't impeach with that [i.e., the Southern Reporter ], Judge. He has to get the transcript. His objection was overruled. The State is correct in noting that Kolberg has provided us with no citation to legal authority to support his claim that the State could not use the Southern Reporter to impeach the witness. Kolberg concedes his research revealed no case directly on point. Kolberg takes the position that this error was compounded because the opinion which the State had the witness read from was later withdrawn on rehearing. However, as pointed out by the State: Rosenhan was under oath there at the time he gave his testimony. It did not somehow become unsworn because this Court relied upon his sworn statements in its opinion. ¶ 144. We believe that the State's attempted impeachment of Rosenhan was appropriate as it had a direct bearing on his competency as a witness, and credibility as an expert. Accordingly, we find no error in this method of impeachment. ¶ 145. Kolberg also asserts that it was error for the trial judge not to give a curative instruction. However, as there was no error in this method of impeachment, no curative instruction was necessary. This assignment of error is without merit.