Opinion ID: 1899909
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Whether the Circuit Court Erred in Allowing the State to Call Eric Haslett as an Adverse Witness.

Text: ¶ 9. Parks next argues that the circuit court erred when it allowed the State to call Eric Haslett as an adverse witness because, Parks reasons, Haslett was neither qualified as an adverse witness, nor did the State tender Haslett as an adverse witness. Generally, the decision to allow leading questions rests within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed absent a showing of an abuse of discretion. McFarland v. State, 707 So.2d 166, 175 (Miss.1998). We have held that when determining whether a witness is identified with an adverse party for purposes of allowing leading questions under Mississippi Rule of Evidence 611(c) [1] , the trial court should determine from the facts and circumstances of the case whether the witness proposed to be called is one who is identified with the adverse party within the meaning and contemplation of the rule. Neal v. State, 805 So.2d 520, 526-27 (Miss.2002) (citing Harris v. Buxton T.V., Inc., 460 So.2d 828, 833 (Miss.1984)). In the present case, Haslett, Parks's cousin, was treated as one identified with an adverse party. While Parks may be correct that Haslett was never charged for the crimes committed against Thompson, that does not change the familial relationship between Haslett and Parks or Haslett's minimal involvement in the events leading to the present case. These two factors alone could easily place Haslett in the category of a witness identified with an adverse party within the meaning of M.R.E. 611(c). Parks has not shown that by allowing the State to use leading questions in its direct examination of Haslett the circuit judge abused his discretion. Accordingly, Parks's assignment of error is without merit.