Opinion ID: 1667731
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: the lower court erred in refusing to grant a mistrial after the district attorney, on cross examination, commented and referred to whether reginald white, a defense witness, had been indicted for the possession of cocaine.

Text: The prosecution inquired on cross-examination of Reginald White, a witness for the appellant, whether he lived in Biloxi or Gulfport. He stated that he lived in Waynesboro, but admitted that he does business there. When asked whether he was a business associate of the appellant, White denied that he was and said they were just friends. The following cross-examination occurred: Q: Reginald, you've been indicted in Biloxi on a charge of possession of cocaine. BY MR. FARRELL: Your Honor, we object to that. Q: Is that right? BY MR. FARRELL: We object to that, your Honor. That's irrelevant and inadmissible to this hearing. BY THE COURT: Overruled. A: Yes. Q: Okay. When  what is  are you scheduled to go to trial sometime in the near future on that charge? BY MR. OGLESBY: Objection, Your Honor. That's immaterial and irrelevant to this question of the guilt or innocence of the defendant. Whether he's to go to trial or not. BY THE COURT: I sustain the objection to the question asked. White was called by the appellant to establish his defense of misidentification and alibi. White stated on cross-examination that, while Sherrod was heavy set like the appellant, Sherrod did not look like the appellant. [1] The appellant's primary defense, however, was that he was in Meridian at the time of the sale and he depended upon Dr. Korngay's testimony and his own to establish that defense. A long time prior to the adoption of the Rules of Evidence, in Hardy v. State, 143 Miss. 352, 108 So. 727 (1926), this Court stated: At common law feelings, bias, and relationship of a witness are not collateral issues. The witness may be interrogated on cross-examination as to his interest, bias, or prejudice, provided the sole purpose is to bring out and elucidate the existing or previous relationship, feeling, or conduct of the witness toward the crime or the accused. Id. at 729 (emphasis added). After the cross-examination of White, the appellant made a motion for a new trial. The trial court stated: BY THE COURT: All right. The Court has considered the motion and heard the arguments of both parties. The Court has reviewed the Mississippi Rules of Evidence, Rule 4.04(b), as it relates to proof of motive, Rule 6.08 and 6.09. The Court has, also, reviewed Vick versus Cochran, 316 So.2d 242, a Mississippi 1975 case, and McInnis versus State, 527 So.2d 84, a Mississippi 1988 case. The court takes notice that the witness who has testified is not  is a close friend of the defendant. The Court feels like  the Court has checked the question and answer that was asked at the conclusion of the trial yesterday with the Court Reporter... . We're not dealing with convictions here, only that this witness was indicted. The Court feels that the issue involved here is a very close and sensitive issue. If it had been the defendant who was testifying there would be no question that the Court would have ruled that the question and answer would be inadmissible under Rule 6.09. However, this witness has testified that he was a close friend of the defendant and had known him for some twenty some odd years and that the question is relevant and probative in that they, the defendant and the witness, have been charged with similar crimes. The witness, the Court feels certainly has an interest in this case by the testimony and he has shown by  and that the State has made a prima facie case of proof of motive under Rule 4.04(b). The Court finds for those reasons that the probative value outweighs the proposition for prejudice of the defendant. Therefore, the motion for mistrial is denied. I'm sure the court will address this on appeal. The Court has tried to conscientiously weigh Rule 4.04(b) as it relates to the facts of this particular case with Rule 6.09 and the recent cases that the Supreme Court has produced. BY MR. OGLESBY: Thank you, Your Honor. BY THE COURT: And an additional reason for the Court's ruling is that Reginald White, the Court feels although he is an important witness to the defendant for his defense of alibi is not the most critical witness. Reginald White testified that he did not see the defendant on the day in question because the defendant had told him the night before that he had a dentist appointment the day the alleged crime was to take place. Dr. Kornegay, who is the defendant's dentist has been subpoenaed and is present to testify and is the critical witness to the defendant's defense of alibi. Comment to Rule 404(b), Mississippi Rules of Evidence, states the following: (b) Against the general prohibition of producing evidence of prior offenses or actions to show that the party acted in conformity with past behavior, is posited a list of exceptions. These past acts introduced into evidence may be ones for which the person in question was either convicted or not convicted. All the exceptions in Rule 404(b) have been recognized and applied on numerous occasions by the Mississippi Supreme Court. Evidence of another crime, for instance, is admissible where the offense in the instant case and in the past offense are so inter-connected as to be considered part of the same transaction. Neal v. State, 451 So.2d 743 (Miss. 1984). The court has consistently recognized that evidence of a prior crime or act may be admitted to show identity, knowledge, intent or motive. Carter v. State, 450 So.2d 67 (Miss. 1984). It should be noted that the exceptions listed in Subsection (b) are not exclusive. M.R.E. 404(b). Rule 616 provides that for the purpose of attacking the credibility of a witness, evidence of bias, prejudice, or interest of the witness for or against any party to the case is admissible. No further comment was made as to the question and answer and it was not referred to in argument. We are of the opinion that the cross-examination did not constitute reversible error and that the objection and motion for new trial were properly overruled. Assigned error number four is rejected.