Opinion ID: 1706565
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 22

Heading: Limitation of Number of Witnesses

Text: Willie next argues that the trial judge erred by limiting the number of witnesses who could testify to mitigating circumstances at the sentencing phase. During the presentation of witnesses, the judge voiced his opinion that the testimony from Willie's witnesses was repetitious and suggested that he would not allow all the family members to testify to the same circumstances. Willie offered to limit his witnesses to two more. After the two testified, the trial judge asked the defense to call their next witness. Willie responded that [t]he court has ruled on the number of witnesses, and we only have one other; it would be the defendant... . Willie did not testify, but gave part of the closing argument. A defendant must be allowed during the sentencing stage to show the jury that he should not be executed. In order to do so, the judge may not preclude the jury from considering, in mitigation, any aspect of the defendant's character or record or any circumstance of the offense. Cole v. State, 525 So.2d 365, 371 (Miss. 1987), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 934, 109 S.Ct. 330, 102 L.Ed.2d 348 (1988) (cites omitted). The only requirement to introducing evidence at the sentencing phase is that it must be relevant. Cole, 525 So.2d at 371 (cite omitted). In the instant case, the trial judge improperly suggested that he might limit the number of witnesses because he could not have known to what each witness would testify. However, Willie, himself, did the actual limiting. Finding no limitation by the judge as to the number of witnesses, or a contemporaneous objection by Willie to the judge's suggestion, we find that this assignment of error has no merit.