Opinion ID: 1831507
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Limiting the Cross-Examination of Witnesses

Text: I would also hold the trial judge in error for limiting Byrom's cross-examination of Officer Edmondson regarding his knowledge of the Miranda rights. It was erroneous to disallow this line of questioning not only because it was valid impeachment material, but also because it went to the pertinent issue of the voluntariness of Byrom's confession. This questioning of Deputy Edmondson was not designed merely to impeach his testimony and credibility, it was designed to show that Byrom did not know her Miranda rights because Deputy Edmonson did not recite them properly. Whether Byrom understood her rights was a crucial issue and the disallowance of this line of questioning was, and remains, erroneous. The trial judge also committed error by improperly limiting Byrom's cross-examination of Sheriff Smith. Sheriff Smith had testified that Junior told the police all they needed to know about the plot to kill Byrom Sr. during his initial interview; however, no record of this interview, other than the Sheriff's report, was made. The Sheriff's report contained only a one-sentence recount of Junior's interview. Byrom's counsel was not permitted to question Sheriff Smith regarding any additional information he learned from Junior. On the subject of cross-examination, this Court said in Prewitt v. State, 156 Miss. 731, 735, 126 So. 824, 825 (1930): It is of the utmost importance in the administration of justice that the right of cross-examination be preserved unimpaired. It is the law's most useful weapon against fabrication and falsehood. As a test of the accuracy, truthfulness, and credibility of testimony, there is no other means as effective. In this state, cross-examination is allowed coextensive with the issues, Walton v. State, 87 Miss. [296] 303, 39 So. 689; not only, but it may proceed into the collateral circumstances surrounding, or in any way affecting, the transaction to the full extent that they have relevant connection by way of testing the memory, accuracy, sincerity, interest, or bias of the witness. In all these matters the privilege of counsel rightfully has broad latitude, and, to make it fully effective towards the purposes for which the law allows and favors it, the privilege should not be interfered with or hampered or restricted by the trial judge, except in clear case of irrelevancy, trespass beyond admissible ground, or extremes of continual, aimless repetition. 1 Thomp. on Trials, §§ 406, 415-419. In several instances in this record, as it appears to us, the privilege was unduly and materially embarrassed by the trial judge; and this feature, taken together with the error first mentioned, makes it our duty, as we view it, to reverse the judgment and remand the case for a new trial. Id. at 825 (emphasis added). One accused of a crime has the right to broad and extensive cross-examination of the witnesses against him.... Suan v. State, 511 So.2d 144, 148 (Miss. 1987); see also Foster v. State, 508 So.2d 1111 (Miss.1987); Miskelley v. State, 480 So.2d 1104, 1108-12 (Miss.1985); Myers v. State, 296 So.2d 695, 700 (Miss.1974). Not only is this right secured by our rules of evidence, Miss. Rules of Evid., Rule 611(b), but it is also a function of the confrontation clauses of federal and state constitutions. U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 6; Miss. Const. §§ 26. The trial court should have permitted Byrom's counsel to cross examine Sheriff Smith regarding Junior's interview. It is true, as the State points out, that the testimony occurred during a suppression hearing. However, as Byrom points out, the motion which necessitated the hearing was also one to compel discovery. The substance of this interview was thus relevant insofar as it dealt with a statement by one of the State's star witnesses that had not been provided to the defense. This limitation by the trial judge is another example of how Byrom was denied the opportunity to develop and present her theory of the case. It is plausible to assume that more information was revealed by Junior during this interview than the two sentences contained in Sheriff Smith's report. Byrom should not have been so limited in questioning Sheriff Smith or Deputy Edmondson, and to limit the development of her case in this manner was error. Exclusion of the Jailhouse Letters I also find error in the exclusion of the jailhouse letters written to Byrom by Junior. This Court warned trial courts against imposing the preclusion sanction in Houston v. State, 531 So.2d 598, 612 (Miss.1988) stating: [g]enerally, it ought to be reserved for cases in which the defendant participates significantly in some deliberate, cynical scheme to gain a substantial tactical advantage. Houston, 531 So.2d at 612; see also Taylor v. Illinois, 484 U.S. 400, 414-15, 108 S.Ct. 646, 98 L.Ed.2d 798 (1988). I would hold the failure to disclose in the case at bar did not warrant complete exclusion of the letters. The conclusion of Byrom's counsel that they were not required to disclose these letters was plausible, considering the wording of the various rules and precedent, and the fact that they intended to use them only for impeachment. This is not a situation where the discovery abuse was wanton or deceitful. Defense counsel apparently had an honest belief that withholding the letters from the State was allowed under the rules and case law of this State. In fact, the trial judge eluded to the confusion in the Bar regarding the rule on this issue, stating I think it's time for the Supreme Court of this state to decide what the law is. A violation of Rule 9.04 is considered harmless error unless it affirmatively appears from the entire record that the violation caused a miscarriage of justice. Buckhalter v. State, 480 So.2d 1128, 1128 (Miss.1985); Prewitt v. State, 755 So.2d 537, 540-41 (Miss.Ct.App.1999). The State, and the majority, submit that Byrom was not prejudiced by the exclusion of these letters. They argue that Byrom's counsel was allowed to ask Junior if he remembered writing every statement in the letters and that Junior admitted writing letters to his mother in which he told her that there was no conspiracy and that he alone killed his father. It is true that defense counsel was allowed to ask Junior whether or not he made all of the statements in the excluded letters. Though he denied making some of them, the ultimate fact that Byrom sought to prove through their introduction, that Junior wrote his mother that he personally killed his father, was admitted by Junior in open court. Thus, the excluded evidence was essentially before the jury. However, the letters remained admissible to the extent that Junior denied making the statements contained therein. See Johnson v. State, 655 So.2d 37, 41 (Miss.1995) (setting forth foundation necessary for impeachment evidence). Junior denied writing his mother: that he went to his father's door, opened it, peeked in, and saw his dad asleep. That he then took two steps, screamed, and when he heard movement, he began firing. Then he went to town, found Gillis, and told him to hide the gun in a spot in the woods where they previously had hidden drugs. Under Rule 613(b), Byrom should have been allowed, following these denials, to introduce the letter wherein he made these statements to impeach Junior's trial testimony. Junior's admissions on the stand may have been discredited by the jury, who may have seen them as a result of the cross-examination skills of Byrom's counsel rather than as truthful statements of past admissions. If Byrom had been allowed to present Junior with the letter that he denied writing, the jury would have known that he was not telling the whole truth. This, coupled with the evidence that Junior had gunshot residue on his hands, whereas Gillis did not, may have made it less likely to the jury that Gillis committed the murder and thereby made it more likely they would have found that Byrom's act of conspiring to pay for her husband's murder was unproductive. The trial court abused its discretion in refusing to allow Byrom to impeach Junior once he made statements contradictory to those in the letters.