Opinion ID: 1830839
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 15

Heading: Whether the Circuit Court erred in refusing to permit the Appellant to interrogate Julie Hughes Sanders concerning her husband's criminal convictions.

Text: ¶ 81. Hughes next contends that it was error to bar him from questioning Mrs. Hughes Sanders on her husband's prior criminal convictions. During the cross engendered by the confrontation discussed in Issue III(D) above, Hughes sought to demonstrate that Mr. Sanders had a prior criminal record. The trial judge disallowed this on the grounds of relevancy. ¶ 82. Hughes is technically barred from arguing this issue on appeal because Hughes did not make a proffer before the trial court. Gates v. State, 484 So.2d 1002, 1008 (Miss.1986). Obviously, a past criminal conviction for battery would be much closer to being relevant than a prior drug offense under the facts of this case, but this can not be ascertained because Hughes did not make a proffer. Even ignoring the bar, however, Hughes' contention is without merit. ¶ 83. Matters concerning the relevance and admissibility of evidence in general are within the sound discretion of the trial court judge. Fisher v. State, 690 So.2d 268, 274 (Miss.1996)( citing Shearer v. State, 423 So.2d 824, 826 (Miss.1982)); Coleman v. State, 697 So.2d 777, 784 (Miss. 1997) (citations omitted); Page v. State, 295 So.2d 279, 282 (Miss.1974)( citing Clanton v. State, 279 So.2d 599 (Miss.1973)). ¶ 84. Here the issue was whether Mrs. Hughes Sanders had been, in fact, improperly influenced by her husband, not her husband's capacity for threatening her. The trial judge did not abuse his discretion in determining that Mr. Sanders' criminal past, whatever it may have been, was irrelevant.