Opinion ID: 1624312
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: was the continued leading of jennifer kinney by the prosecutor as to cogent points reversible error?

Text: The prosecutor asked Jennifer what happened to her clothes, and Jennifer said that he (Ivy) put the shirt and the towels in the dumpster in the back yard and the jump suit on the dryer. Then the following questioning took place: Q. Okay, and you were wearing a little pink jump suit, is that right? A. Uh-huh. Q. Okay, and you had a little shirt on underneath that, is that right? A. Yeah. Q. Okay, and he threw some of those things in the dumpster behind  over there by the house, is that right, by the garbage  A. Yeah. At this point counsel for Ivy objected as to leading the witness and was overruled. Then the prosecutor asked Jennifer other similar type leading questions. The court overruled the objection, stating, This witness is a child of five years of age and I'm going to permit him to lead this witness. Leading questions should not be used on the direct examination of a witness except as may be necessary to develop his testimony. Mississippi Rule of Evidence 611(c). This rule is identical to Federal Rule of Evidence 611(c). Both rules acknowledge that leading questions may be necessary to develop the testimony. Children are a classic example of the kinds of witnesses for whom leading questions may be necessary. 3 Weinstein's Evidence, para. 611[05] (1987). In a recent federal case, the prosecutor led a child witness who was reluctant to repeat a naughty word and asked Can I say it? The prosecutor stated, Yes, you can say it, and he did. The court stated that, The trial court's ruling deserves deference because the court was in the best position to evaluate the emotional condition of the child witness and his hesitancy to testify. United v. Nabors, 762 F.2d 642, 650-651 (8th Cir.1985). This Court defers to the trial judge's ruling as to the leading questions recited above. Such a holding is consistent with prerules law that the trial judge has broad discretion in passing on the form of questions asked minors. Allen v. State, 384 So.2d 605, 606 (Miss. 1980); Cabello v. State, 471 So.2d 332, 340 (Miss. 1985). This Court concludes that there was no reversible error in this assignment.