Opinion ID: 1863920
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: the lower court erred in refusing to grant a mistrial when evidence of other crimes and violation of other court orders were adduced over the objections of the appellant.

Text: The victim was called as the first witness for the State. After she testified to facts related hereinbefore, the prosecutor asked her the following question: Q. Has Billy ever done this to you before,  A. (The victim nodded Yes) At this point, without making an objection or asking that the jury be admonished to disregard the question and answer, appellant's counsel requested a mistrial. It was denied and the trial proceeded. Appellant based his motion for mistrial solely on the issue of past crimes. Now he also contends that the crimes were vague and remote. In Sims v. State, 512 So.2d 1256 (Miss. 1987), the Court said: [T]his Court's longstanding rule must again be reiterated, that when an objection is made at trial on one ground and on another ground on appeal, we will not accept such untimely argument as a ground for reversal. [citations omitted] ... An objection to evidence may not be made upon one ground in the lower court and be presented upon an entirely different theory in this Court. Sims v. State, 512 So.2d at 1258. This Court has held in similar cases of sexual battery involving small children that admission of evidence of substantially similar prior sexual acts with the same person are properly admitted. Coates v. State, 495 So.2d 464, 468 (Miss. 1986); Hicks v. State, 441 So.2d 1359, 1360-61 (Miss. 1983); Speagle v. State, 390 So.2d 990, 993 (Miss. 1980); Davis v. State, 367 So.2d 445, 446 (Miss. 1979). Counsel for appellant called appellant's wife, the mother of the victim, who testified that at the time of the alleged offense, the family had no bunk beds. This was contradictory to the victim's testimony. On cross-examination, the prosecutor asked her when the bunk beds were acquired. She replied that the beds were acquired in August of 1985. The following questions were then asked: Q. Who bought them and installed them, put them up? A. Who bought them and installed them; Billy. Q. Billy Hosford? A. My husband.       Q. About a year ago, after Billy had been ordered not to see these children? BY MR. HAMILTON: Your Honor, I'm going to object. This is hearsay. BY THE COURT: Overruled. Go ahead. BY MR. HARKEY: Q. Do you know Billy was ordered not to see those kids? A. That's right. Q. So he got the bunk beds and installed them at a time that he wasn't supposed to be there in the home at all? A. No, he did not. He never came to the home when he was ordered not to come. BY MR. HAMILTON: Your Honor, what has all this got to do with anything? BY MR. HARKEY: I'm testing her credibility, Judge, her story. BY THE COURT: Go ahead... . Appellant contends that admission of the testimony about a court order deprived him of a fair and impartial trial. However, the questions by the prosecutor were for the purpose of discrediting the witness and to show that the bunk beds were in the house at the time of the crime; that, according to Mrs. Hosford's admission, appellant had not violated the court order forbidding him to come to the family home; that, if he couldn't have come to the home, he couldn't have installed the bunk beds in August of 1985; and that the beds would have had to have been in the home at the time of the sexual battery in January of 1985. This Court has held that where facts are susceptible of two interpretations they constitute a fair target for the State's cross-examination. Hines v. State, 472 So.2d 386, 391 (Miss. 1985); see also Shanklin v. State, 290 So.2d 625 (Miss. 1974), where this Court said: Whether a question put on cross-examination calls for collateral fact, or whether it is within the scope of the direct examination is always for the court to determine. The court's discretion, where properly exercised, will not be interfered with on appeal. Id. at 628. Mrs. Hosford testified that she did not believe the incident related by the victim. The assigned Error I is rejected.