Opinion ID: 1109226
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 23

Heading: whether the lower court erred in allowing improper redirect by the prosecution

Text: ¶ 71. Tanner asserts that the trial judge committed reversible error by admitting evidence on re-direct that had not been discussed on direct or cross-examination. The trial court has broad discretion in allowing or disallowing redirect examination of witnesses. West v. State, 463 So.2d 1048, 1055 (Miss.1985). Furthermore, we will not disturb a trial court's ruling on matters pertaining to redirect examination unless there has been a clear abuse of discretion. Blue v. State, 674 So.2d 1184, 1212 (Miss.1996). ¶ 72. In the present case, Tanner specifically sets forth four instances where he alleges the State was allowed to introduce testimony on redirect that had not been previously discussed in direct or cross-examination.
¶ 73. The prosecution asked Detective McCann during redirect: Q: Now, counsel asked you what made this defendant a suspect in this case. A: Yes. Q: Did the fact he got caught ¶ 74. Tanner asserts the above testimony was improper redirect. This Court disagrees. During cross-examination, Tanner's counsel asked whether he was considered a suspect at the time he informed the police his fingerprints were on Wood's safe. Since Tanner had inquired as to when Tanner became a suspect in this case, it was not improper redirect for the prosecution to inquire on the same topic during redirect. Accordingly, this issue is without merit.
¶ 75. The prosecution asked Detective McCann during redirect: Q: Is there anything to tie any of the suspects in any of those other cases to the murder of Verna Wood? A: No, there is not evidence of that. ¶ 76. Tanner asserts that he was prohibited on cross-examination from asking about other suspects that had admitted to killing at least four people in the area near Wood's home. While this is true, Tanner was allowed to question Detective McCann as to whether there had previously been similar crimes in this area. He was also allowed to ask when those crimes took place. On redirect, the State asked if there was anything to tie the crimes mentioned on cross-examination to the present case. The trial court then denied Tanner's request for follow-up questions. ¶ 77. This Court concludes that the State's redirect was proper. The trial court simply forbid Tanner from going into the details of the other crimes, but did not prevent him from putting the information before the jury. Likewise, the State did not go into any details surrounding the crimes, but only asked if there had been any connection between those and the present case. Therefore, the redirect was proper and this issue is without merit.
¶ 78. The prosecution asked Mr. Thomas Story about the numerical sequence of a missing check of Wood and Tanner's counsel responded: [Mr. Malouf]: That's what I'm saying. I understand. I did not get into the sequence of the checks, therefore, it is not proper redirect for him to do so. ¶ 79. Tanner asserts that since he did not go into the sequence of the checks during cross-examination, that the trial court erred by allowing the State to ask if the highest numbered check was made out to Orkin Pest Control on the date Wood died. Outside the presence of the jury, Tanner explained that Wood did not write checks in sequential order and that he did not address this issue during cross-examination. However, Tanner did extensively go through the checks and check numbers during cross-examination. Although Tanner may have not specifically used the term sequence, he did refer to the check numbers and specifically referred to the check and number in dispute. Consequently, it was not error for the State to ask if the highest number missing from the checkbook was written on the same day Wood died. Therefore, this issue is without merit.
¶ 80. The prosecution asked Detective McCann during redirect: Q: Detective Winstead, do you know of any persondo you, Brent Winstead, know of any person in this universe other than Boman Tanner who got caught selling Verna Wood's jewelry the afternoon she was killed? ¶ 81. Once again, Tanner asserts that the above testimony was not addressed on cross-examination. However, a review of the record, shows that the issue of Tanner selling the diamonds had been discussed on at least three other occasions during cross-examination. The trial court has broad discretion on matters of redirect, and, absent an abuse of discretion, its decisions will not be overturned. Blue, 674 So.2d at 1212. Accordingly, this Court concludes the redirect was proper and finds this issue to be without merit.