Opinion ID: 1730477
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 23

Heading: the trial court erred in limiting cross-examination of dr. carlyle.

Text: Carr claims that his cross-examination of Dr. Carlyle was improperly restricted. Defense counsel asked Dr. Carlyle whether she took into account Carr's mental functioning level in her assessment. Dr. Carlyle responded that she did. Defense counsel then attempted to get that mental functioning level admitted. The State's objection was sustained. The restriction on that line of questioning had been established earlier in chambers. Defense counsel sought to limit the State's cross-examination of Dr. Kallman in order to prevent the use of information in Dr. Kallman's report from being used as a springboard into other matters relating to the mental condition of Carr. The trial court allowed Dr. Kallman to testify solely as to the personality trait in question, and to explain the basis of his evaluation; however, the court limited it to the tests administered, not the specific results of those tests. Dr. Kallman was not asked about Carr's mental functioning level. With regard to the scope of cross-examination, we have stated: [t]hough the scope of cross-examination is ordinarily broad, it is within the sound discretion of the trial judge, who possesses the inherent power to limit cross-examination to relevant matters. However, the discretion of the trial court is not without limits; this Court has reversed where the trial court exceeded the limits in an area proper for cross-examination. Hewlett v. State, 607 So.2d 1097, 1100 (Miss. 1992) (citations omitted). [C]ross-examination on an irrelevant point is not permitted. Sayles v. State, 552 So.2d 1383, 1386 (Miss. 1989). Although the scope of cross-examination is broad, the trial court properly restricted its use in this case. The trial court determined before Dr. Kallman testified that discussion of Carr's specific mental functioning level would not be permitted. Both defense counsel and the State were aware of this ruling. Dr. Kallman, who administered the tests, was not asked to testify as to the mental functioning level of Carr. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in limiting the cross-examination of Dr. Carlyle on this subject. There is no merit to this assignment of error.