Opinion ID: 1652601
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: whether the trial court erred in classifying ella townes as a hostile witness.

Text: ¶ 24. Neal argues that the trial court incorrectly classified Ella Townes as a hostile witness, and that the State was improperly allowed to ask her leading questions. Actually, the State sought to interrogate Townes as a witness identified with an adverse party under M.R.E. 611(c). After the State established a foundation that Neal and Townes's daughter lived together for 3 or 4 years, the trial court found Townes connected with the defendant and allowed the witness to be treated as a hostile witness. Testimony revealed Townes was interested in the events following Williams's murder, that she had conversations with her daughter and with Neal concerning the murder, and that she harbored suspicions about Neal's involvement in the murder. All of this evidence is indicative of a family-type relationship. ¶ 25. M.R.E. 611(c) allows leading questions on direct examination when a party calls a hostile witness, an adverse party, or a witness identified with an adverse party: (c) Leading Questions. Leading questions should not be used on the direct examination of a witness except as may be necessary to develop his testimony. Ordinarily, leading questions should be permitted on cross-examination. When a party calls a hostile witness, an adverse party, or a witness identified with an adverse party, interrogation may be by leading questions. ¶ 26. We have ruled that the trial court, in deciding whether a witness is identified with an adverse party for purposes of allowing leading questions, should determine from the facts and circumstances of the case whether the witness proposed to be called is one who is identified with the adverse party within the meaning and contemplation of the rule. Harris v. Buxton T.V., Inc., 460 So.2d 828, 833 (Miss.1984) (discussing M.R.C.P. 43(b)(3), the predecessor rule to M.R.E. 611(c)); see also Hall v. State, 546 So.2d 673, 675 (Miss. 1989) (M.R.E. 611(c) should be more broadly interpreted than M.R.C.P. 43(b)(3)). ¶ 27. The decision to allow leading questions rests within the discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed unless there is a showing of abuse of discretion. McFarland v. State, 707 So.2d 166, 175 (Miss.1998). We cannot say based under the facts and circumstances of this case that the trial court abused its discretion in identifying Townes with Neal and allowing leading questions. ¶ 28. This assignment of error is without merit.