Opinion ID: 1780246
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: cross examination of dr. emily ward

Text: ¶ 57. Bennett next claims the trial court erred in allowing the State to ask his expert, Dr. Emily Ward (Dr.Ward), why she left the coroner's office in Mississippi. Bennett argues that Dr. Ward's reasons for leaving in no way reflect on her credibility or qualifications and are completely unrelated to the facts of the case. Thus, Bennett reasons, such prejudicial questioning by the State necessitates reversal of his case. ¶ 58. The scope of cross examination is largely within the discretion of the trial court. Cross examination may proceed into the collateral circumstances surrounding, or in any way affecting, the transaction to the full extent that they have relevant connection by way of testing the memory, accuracy, sincerity, interest, or bias of the witness. Byrom v. State, 863 So.2d 836, 896-97 (Miss.2003). Wide latitude is allowed in cross examination to show bias or motive for the purpose of affecting credibility. Id. ¶ 59. The State claims its questions were proper attempts to inquire into the biases and credibility of Dr. Ward, as well as her independent credibility as a coroner in the case. Dr. Ward was hired to conduct an examination of the victim's body, but she never examined Bennett himself. During cross examination, however, Dr. Ward repeatedly stated that Bennett was confused and upset about what happened to his son, therefore implying he could not have committed the crime. ¶ 60. Also, Dr. Ward appears to have been a difficult and uncooperative witness, causing the trial court to admonish her on several occasions to answer the questions and stop arguing with the prosecution. As Dr. Ward's testimony continued, she refused to admit she was hired by the defense, and it took the State nearly six pages of trial record to have her admit she was hired to conduct an autopsy. At this point in the examination, the State asked Dr. Ward if she was Mississippi's medical examiner at the time she conducted the autopsy. Dr. Ward stated that she had been the state's medical examiner, but she had chosen to leave the position. The State then asked Dr. Ward if it was true that she had to leave the position because the county coroners of Mississippi requested she do so and even petitioned the governor for her resignation. Dr. Ward denied such allegations but stated that the letter sent to the governor was originated by Dr. Hayne's cohort . . . . Dr. Ward's hostile characterization of Dr. Hayne was used by the State to show that Dr. Ward blamed Dr. Hayne for threats to her previous job. ¶ 61. Bennett cites cases wherein questioning was intended solely to embarrass the witness and was immaterial to the issues before the court. See Fishboats, Inc. v. Welzbacher, 413 So.2d 710, 719 (Miss.1982) (noting that [q]uestions intended to embarrass or humiliate a witness as well as those extending to irrelevant matters, are not permissible.); Tippit v. Hunter, 205 So.2d 267, 273 (Miss.1967) (holding that wholly immaterial evidence may not be elicited from the witness on cross-examination.). ¶ 62. The State's questioning of Dr. Ward was entirely proper. Bias, prejudice and credibility are always in issue, and the State's questions were proper attempts to inquire into Dr. Ward's personal feelings about Dr. Hayne and her forthrightness in the reasons for leaving her employment. Wide latitude is permitted in cross-examination to show bias or motive and the affect on a witness's credibility. See Byrom, 863 So.2d at 896-97. This assignment of error is without merit.