Opinion ID: 1109226
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 18

Heading: whether the lower court erred in limiting the cross-examination of austin shaddix

Text: ¶ 43. Tanner asserts the trial court erred by prohibiting Tanner from questioning the prosecution's chief witness, Austin Shaddix, about whether he made a deal with the prosecution in exchange for his testimony. Tanner further asserts that, although he testified to the contrary, Shaddix did receive favorable treatment in exchange for his testimony. ¶ 44. When a witness has entered into an agreement with the State which guarantees his immunity or leniency in exchange for his testimony, that agreement is a proper subject for cross-examination. Foster v. State, 508 So.2d 1111, 1114 (Miss.1987). Although Tanner asserts that he was prohibited from questioning Shaddix about whether he made a deal with the State in exchange for his testimony, a careful review of the record suggests otherwise: Q: ... I understand there is no deal on the table, so I am not trying to misrepresent that; Is that right? A: That's right. Q: You said you are just hoping for a deal; is that right? A: I really haven't even got their say that I have got any hope. Tanner was further allowed to question Shaddix regarding the length of time he would remain in jail without a deal from the State. Tanner also asked Shaddix about his past criminal history, which included crimes for dishonesty, receipt of stolen goods, and possession of controlled substances. Based upon those questions, the jury was well informed and briefed on the possible motives behind Shaddix's testimony. Therefore, Tanner's argument that his cross-examination of Shaddix was limited is without merit. ¶ 45. Tanner further asserts that Shaddix, contrary to his testimony at trial, did receive favorable treatment from the State. In support of his argument, Tanner includes the following language from the transcript of Shaddix's hearing in his record excerpts: The Court: Any statement you would like to make to the Court? Mr. Klotz: Yes, sir, Judge, just an explanation of why we're here. Mr. Shaddix testified in Bo Tanner's murder case. He was one of the main witnesses on the State's behalf. He's now in protective custody because of that. He's been in protective custody, and Tommy Mayfield and I have talked extensively about Mr. Shaddix's case, and he was the one who made the recommendation in the case. And that's how we have arrived at this particular plea offer in this particular case. [2] ¶ 46. Consequently, the court released Shaddix as a non-habitual offender with the remaining nine years and six months of his sentence suspended. Prior to his hearing, Shaddix was serving a twenty-five year term as an habitual offender with no possibility of parole. ¶ 47. This Court has repeatedly held that [t]his Court will not consider matters which do not appear in the record and must confine itself to what actually does appear in the record. Medina v. State, 688 So.2d 727, 732 (Miss.1996). Moreover, we cannot decide an issue based on assertions in the briefs alone; rather, issues must be proven by the record. Id. In the present case, there is no information contained within the record itself that indicates Tanner received favorable treatment by the State in exchange for his testimony. In effect, Tanner is arguing matters which are outside the appellate record, and therefore, can not be considered by this Court. Therefore, Tanner's argument that the State misrepresented a deal to the jury is without merit.