Opinion ID: 1567830
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Cross-examination of Deputy Sheriff Reeves.

Text: ¶ 31. Christmas argues that the trial court erred by not allowing his attorney to question Reeves about his statements to law enforcement authorities. During direct examination, Reeves was asked whether Christmas had admitted being present during the robbery, and Reeves responded he did. On cross-examination, defense counsel asked Reeves whether Christmas had stated that he participated in the crimes against Ms. Sellers. Before Reeves could answer, the State objected, citing hearsay. The trial court sustained the objection, and defense counsel did not rephrase the question or attempt to proffer the expected testimony. ¶ 32. It is well recognized that a trial court will not be reversed for limiting cross-examination where `no proffer was made of the testimony nor was a statement dictated into the record to indicate what was proposed to be shown by the examination.' Blocker v. State, 809 So.2d 640, 646 (Miss.2002) (quoting McGee v. State, 365 So.2d 302, 304 (Miss.1978)). Because the defense attorney failed to proffer the officer's expected testimony, this Court cannot assume that the evidence would have supported Christmas's defense. Thus, this issue is without merit.