Opinion ID: 1660527
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: whether rogers was prejudiced by the trial court's granting the state's motion in limine to prohibit all mention of jessie johnson's charge of capital murder.

Text: ¶ 17. Prior to trial, the State moved in limine to prohibit any mention of pending criminal charges against its witness Jessie Johnson. This motion was granted over defense counsel's objections. Rogers asserts that the granting of this motion denied him his right under the confrontation clause to cross-examine witnesses testifying against him. See U.S. Const. amend. VI; Miss. Const. art. 3, § 26. ¶ 18. Rogers relies on Hall v. State, 476 So.2d 26, 28 (Miss.1985), where we reversed and remanded the case for a new trial when the trial court did not allow the defendant to cross-examine two of the State's key witnesses, who were related as brother and sister, regarding their pending charges. We held that even though there was no evidence of a bargain with the State, it would be naive to suppose that the absence of a formal agreement with the prosecution precluded such an expectation. Id. ¶ 19. [I]nquiry into possible promises of leniency by the state and the disposition of criminal charges pending against the state's witnesses are proper areas for interrogation. Hill v. State, 512 So.2d 883, 885 (Miss.1987) (citations omitted.) However, a violation of the confrontation clause can be subjected to harmless error review. Earl v. State, 672 So.2d 1240, 1243 (Miss.1996) (citing Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 106 S.Ct. 1431, 89 L.Ed.2d 674 (1986)). ¶ 20. In this matter, Rogers was allowed to call Jessie to the stand and question him about whether he had any criminal charges pending against him, and Jessie answered that he did. Jessie testified that he was not promised any leniency from the State for his testimony. Rogers next called Jessie's attorney, Wayne Housley (Housley), to the stand, and he testified that because of Jessie's cooperation and testimony in this matter, efforts were made to negotiate a possible plea with the State. Housley further testified that these efforts were rebuffed by the State, which stated that it only desired Jessie's cooperation and testimony in this case. Housley stated that he discussed this with his client, and Jessie decided to testify anyway. ¶ 21. Furthermore, Rogers's counsel was allowed to make the following closing argument to the jury over the State's objection. By Mr. Weddle: Now, does Jessie Johnson have any reason to lie on the stand? They submit to you that he does not. Yet, he came in here this morning and admitted to you that he had a criminal charge pending in this county, in this court, this very court. Now, while they say there were no promises made, it was clear that if Jessie Johnson testified in this case and cooperated in this case Mr. Geddie: Objection, Your Honor. There's no proof of this. It's not clear. The Court: Objection overruled, Counsel. You may proceed. By Mr. Weddle: That if he cooperated with officials and testified in this case, that either the State or his own attorney would inform the judge sitting on this case at sentencing or at whatever appropriate time that he did so. That should be a factor in whether or not you believe Jessie Johnson. They would have you believe that he has no reason to lie when he gets up here on the witness stand, yet he does, to help himself. ¶ 22. It is clear from the record that Rogers had ample opportunity to question Jessie about his motives for testifying and had ample opportunity to impeach Jessie's testimony before the jury. Rogers does not appear to have mentioned what type of charges were pending against Jessie, but he was allowed to thoroughly question Jessie and Jessie's attorney concerning the pending charges and any possible motivation behind Jessie's testimony. For the reasons discussed above, we hold that the trial court did not commit reversible error in granting the State's motion in limine.