Opinion ID: 1889596
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: excluding testimony of frank kelley

Text: The rule was invoked at trial. When the proponents offered Frank Kelley as a witness, the contestants objected. Kelly was a party defendant, a son of Edd Kelley, who was a devisee under the will. Kelley had been in the courtroom the previous day when one of the handwriting experts testified. Because of the violation of the rule, the Chancellor would not permit Kelley to testify before the jury. In chambers the proponents made profert of his testimony by examining him and the contestants cross-examined him. The refusal of the Chancellor to permit his testimony before the jury is assigned as error. There would ordinarily be the question about the competency of Kelley to testify as violative of the Dead Man Statute. Brief and argument of counsel, however, state Edd Kelley pre-deceased Sarah, and since the will contains no anti-lapse provision, the devise to Edd Kelley lapsed under the statute. See: Miss. Code Ann. 91-5-7. We have often stated that it is discretionary with the trial judge whether to permit a witness who has violated the rule to testify. In Chilcutt v. Keating, 220 Miss. 545, 71 So.2d 472 (1954), we held that permitting a witness to testify after violating the rule was not error. In Moore v. Chambers, 199 So.2d 261 (Miss. 1969), we reversed a trial court's refusal to permit a party to testify after first being called as an adverse witness by the opposing side. That case involved some misunderstanding as to the invocation of the rule, however, as well as a party who had already testified as an adverse witness. In four criminal cases we have affirmed two convictions of defendants when the state, over defense counsel objection, was permitted to call a witness who had violated the rule to testify, and likewise affirmed two convictions of defendants when the circuit judge refused to permit the defense to call a witness to testify who had violated the rule. In Triplett v. State, 230 Miss. 707, 93 So.2d 654 (1957) and Humphreys v. State, 217 Miss. 909, 65 So.2d 226 (1953), we affirmed where the state, over the objection of the defendant, permitted witnesses to testify who had violated the rule. In Goss v. State, 413 So.2d 1033 (Miss. 1982) and Ford v. State, 227 So.2d 454 (Miss. 1969), we affirmed the convictions of defendants when the circuit judge refused to permit witnesses who had violated the rule to testify as defense witnesses. In Goss we did have some discomfort with the ruling, and suggested it would be preferable for the circuit judge, in the exercise of his discretion, to lean towards admitting the testimony. From the record, Kelley's testimony in chambers would appear to be somewhat less than completely satisfying to the proponents, and we do not fully understand the contestants objection to his testifying before the jury. These matters rest within the sound discretion of a trial judge there on the scene, and we are most reluctant to reverse a trial judge on his ruling as to whether a witness who has violated the rule should testify. Nevertheless, in this case Kelley stated to the Chancellor, presumably under oath, that he had only been in the courtroom about three minutes on the previous day, and we believe he should have been permitted to testify. The right to call a witness is such an important right, we believe, as we stated in Goss, that trial judges should, where they can, lean towards permitting such a witness to testify. The Chancellor conducted this difficult trial with considerable discernment and ability, and it is with reluctance we feel constrained to reverse on this one question. There was no cross-appeal on the Chancellor's permitting Laverne Webster to testify, over the objection of the contestants, as being violative of the Dead Man Statute, and we do not address her competency, or whether it was waived by the request for admissions, and the interrogatories propounded to her. Upon remand, the issues of undue influence and testamentary capacity will not be foreclosed to the contestants. In view of the testimony of the proponents witnesses, there may very well be an issue of undue influence as well as testamentary capacity upon retrial. These witnesses' testimony, coming as a complete surprise to the proponents, would make it unfair to foreclose from the contestants the opportunity upon retrial to also attack the will on these grounds. REVERSED AND REMANDED. PATTERSON, C.J., WALKER and BROOM, P.JJ., and ROY NOBLE LEE, PRATHER and ROBERTSON, JJ., concur. BOWLING and DAN M. LEE, JJ., not participating.