Opinion ID: 1698163
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Interrogation of a Witness By the Court

Text: Johnson claims the trial judge erred when, after both sides had rested during the sentencing phase of the bifurcated trial, the Court recalled the State's only witness and clarified certain factual data concerning the dates of service of a previous sentence. The judge asked James Graham, custodian of records at the state penitentiary, the dates that Johnson was incarcerated following Johnson's previous conviction for armed robbery. Both parties were given an opportunity to reexamine the witness following the court's brief inquiry. No authority is cited for this proposition. An assignment of error, unsupported by any authority, lacks persuasion on review. Smith v. State, 430 So.2d 406, 407 (Miss. 1983). Supporting assigned errors and issues with reasons and authorities is part of an appellant's burden on appeal. Pate v. State, 419 So.2d 1324, 1325-26 (Miss. 1982). It is the duty of counsel to make more than an assertion; they should state reasons for their propositions and cite authorities in their support. Johnson v. State, 154 Miss. 512, 513, 122 So. 529, 529 (1929). In Harris v. State, 386 So.2d 393, 396 (Miss. 1980), Harris assigned as error the overruling of his motion for new trial. This Court held: There is no merit in this assignment of error. Appellant's 6-line argument presents no facts nor does he cite any authority. In Ramseur v. State, 368 So.2d 842 (Miss. 1979), we said: Where assignments of error are unsupported by argument and authority, the court does not, as a general rule, consider them. Harris, 386 So.2d at 396. Johnson's abbreviated argument lacks persuasion for this reason if for no other and need not be addressed by this Court. However, Rule 5.08, Miss.Unif.Crim.R.Cir. Ct.Prac. (1979), states, in its pertinent parts, the following: When necessary, the judge may interrogate a witness or may interrogate a witness to clarify testimony, but when so doing, must use the utmost impartiality and must not indicate an opinion on the value of the testimony. In the case at bar, the judge, after being confused by the arguments of counsel with respect to the dates of a prior sentence, sought clarification of that particular issue. Under Rule 5.08 this was within his authority. Moreover, the questioning took place during the sentencing phase of the two stage trial after the jury had already adjudicated Johnson guilty of the substantive offense. Accordingly, there was no jury present to prejudice or influence. This Court is not persuaded by Johnson's claim that the circuit judge overstepped his bounds as an impartial judge and became an advocate for the State when he sought clarification of Johnson's prior sentence. No abuse of judicial discretion has been demonstrated.