Opinion ID: 1091604
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: whether the trial court erred in overruling defense motion for a mistrial when the district attorney began participating in the case without having been present at the voir dire of the jury.

Text: The record reflects that District Attorney Ed Peters began participating actively and vigorously in this trial during the cross-examination of the State's first witness which was at page 57 of the record. Following the direct examination of the State's third witness the defense objected to the D.A.'s participation on the ground that he was not present during the voir dire and defendant was not afforded an opportunity to question jurors with respect to their relationship to the District Attorney. The Court overruled defendant's motion for a mistrial. In doing so, the trial judge stated that during the court's voir dire, the judge inquired if any prospective juror had knowledge of Mr. Peters. In answering this question, this Court first notes that the objection of the district attorney's participation was not contemporaneously made when he initially came into the courtroom. Therefore, appellate review of the issue is procedurally barred. Hill v. State, 432 So.2d 427 (Miss. 1983). Notwithstanding the procedural bar, this Court finds that the issue has no merit. The defense counsel knew that the prosecution was conducted by the office of the district attorney of Hinds County headed by Mr. Peters. Whether the district attorney, or one of his assistants conducted the actual trial, the defense counsel was charged with knowledge of Mr. Peters office's involvement and could have voir dired the venirepersons along those lines. Also, the voir dire of the jury was not made a part of this record. We previously have suggested to bench and bar that all facets of a criminal trial be recorded and preserved for review upon appeal. Dorrough v. State, 437 So.2d 35 (Miss. 1983), Mound Bayou v. Collins, 457 So.2d 337, 343 (Miss. 1984). In the absence of this record this Court cannot say that the assertion of the appellant constituted error. This assignment of error is meritless.