Opinion ID: 1130352
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Trial Court Unduly Limited the Defendant in Direct Examination of Witnesses Called by the Appellant.

Text: Vince complains that the trial court was in error in refusing to allow him to use the term going with in an attempt to show that Nora had a sexual relationship with another man or other men and instructing the jury that the term was not to be considered as engaging in sexual relations. Vince repeatedly informed the court and the jury that the term going with when used by Nora in describing a relationship meant that she was having sexual relations with the one she was going with. Vince believes that, the witnesses and parties all seem to agree that from time to time the parties would describe their relationship as `going together' during that period of time when they were regularly engaged in sexual relations prior to the pregnancy. Vince argues that he should have been allowed to testify as to what meaning the parties placed on these terms, citing M.R.E. § 701 in support of his argument: If the witness is not testifying as an expert, his testimony in the form of opinions of inferences is limited to those opinions or inferences which are (a) rationally based on a perception of a witness and (b) helpful to the clear understanding of his testimony or the determination of a fact in issue. Vince believes that this rule resolves all doubt that he should have been able to explain the meaning of the term going with. Additionally, Vince cites Moran v. State, 160 Miss. 598, 135 So. 209 (1931), which concerns this Court's position on taking judicial notice of certain words and phrases. Vince contends that the trial court should have taken judicial notice of the meaning of the phrase going with to mean sexual intercourse. In Administrators of the Tulane Educational Fund v. Duane Cooley, 462 So.2d 696 (Miss. 1984), this Court said: A judicially noticed fact must be one not subject to reasonable dispute in that it is either (a) generally known within the state or (b) capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned. Id. at 699. This view has been codified as Rule 201(b), M.R.E. We find no evidence that going with means sexual intercourse in the general use of these words in this state. The meaning given to the words by Vince can and is the subject of reasonable dispute in this case. Although Vince was not allowed to make the assumption that Nora had sexual intercourse with other men when she used the term going with, there is no question that this evidence was put before the jury. On direct examination, Vince was asked if during the meeting with Nora in May of 1984 they discussed the paternity of the child. Vince answered that they did and that he told Nora that he did not believe it was his child because you have been sleeping around with guys. At this point, an objection was overruled and he repeated, because of those guys you've been sleeping around with. Vince, therefore, got before the jury his alleged contentions that Nora was sexually active with other men. We find no merit in this assignment of error.