Opinion ID: 1708431
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: should the trial court have declared a mistrial when florence jordan's name was mentioned in open court during voir dire?

Text: The argument of the appellant under this assignment of error is that, when the trial judge asked the jury during voir dire if any of them knew Florence Jordan, he impermissibly brought her to their attention as a witness to the crime. Thus, Jordan was forced to call his wife as a witness to prevent the jury's speculation as to what her testimony would have been. Had she not been called, then Officer Henley could not have testified to the statement that Florence Jordan gave her in the hospital. The State's argument is that, given the circumstances of this case, it would have become obvious to the jury during trial that Mrs. Jordan was a witness to the crime; thus, there still would have been speculation as to why she was called. Furthermore, the State argues, since Florence's testimony was so favorable to her husband, it was obvious that he was planning to call her as a witness, anyway. In Wideman v. State, 339 So.2d 1378 (Miss. 1976), the prosecutor called the defendant's wife to the stand, forcing the defendant to object to her testimony. The Court refused to find reversible error therein, noting that she later testified as her husband's witness, and she testified at length on direct and cross-examination. The record does not reflect that appellant felt compelled to call his wife on account of the conduct of the prosecuting attorney. Thus, if error was committed, it became harmless when the wife testified on behalf of appellant. Id. at 1381. Jordan's attorney indicated when he moved for a mistrial that he would be forced to put Mrs. Jordan on the stand to avoid prejudice on the part of the jury. However, a close review of this record leads us to believe that it was Jordan's intent to put his wife on the stand from the beginning of trial. Her testimony was immensely favorable to him, since it corroborated his story in almost every detail. Furthermore, his insistence on a Weathersby instruction would have been fruitless without her testimony. Weathersby only applies where the story of the defendant and any eyewitness is corroborated by other evidence. Thus, we find that this case falls squarely under the Wideman rationale, and any error made by the trial court in mentioning Florence Jordan's name during voir dire was harmless.