Opinion ID: 1744864
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: assignment numbers fifteen and sixteen

Text: By these assignments the defendants contend that the trial court erred in its rulings on objections to leading questions. In assignment number fifteen the defendants argue that the trial court erred when it sustained the prosecution's objection to a leading question. During the cross examination of Helen Armstead, the mother of the victim, by the defense counsel the following colloquy occurred: Q: Did you ever stop to think that your son might have died of natural causes? A: I thought that at first. Q: You thought that at first, and something has changed your mind since then? A: I changed my own mind. Q: You were surprised by the fact that he passed away, weren't you? A: Yes, sir. Wait a minute, I wasn't exactly surprised in a way. Q: How do you mean that? A: After I saw Arthur, saw him good that morning, I was scared to death that something was going to happen to him. Q: When you saw him in a weakened condition that morning? A: Yes, sir. Q: But you told me up and prior to that time you had absolutely no idea anything was the matter with him, didn't you, that's just what you said? A: I told you up until that time death had never crossed my mind. Q: Well, had you thought that anything was wrong with him prior to that time? A: Just hungry. Q: Your son didn't die of malnutrition though, did he? At this point the prosecutor objected to the examination as leading and the trial judge sustained his objection. Assignment number sixteen relates to the direct examination by the state of the victim's eleven year old sister, Keesha. During this questioning, the state inquired several times regarding the whippings administered to Arthur. When the state asked whether the whippings took place for a pretty long time, the defendant's attorney objected to the question as leading. The trial court sustained this objection and the rest of Keesha's examination was completed without objection. A leading question is one which suggests to the witness the answer he is to deliver and though framed in the alternative, is inadmissible when propounded to one's own witness, unless such witness be unwilling or hostile. La.R.S. 15:277. However, ordinarily leading questions are permitted on cross-examination. McCormick, Evidence, § 6 at 9 (Cleary ed. 1972); Fed.R.Evid. 611. And, the rule against leading one's own witnesses is relaxed, as a matter of necessity, even during the direct examination of certain witnesses such as children, weak-minded adults, and persons deficient in the English language. McCormick, supra, at p. 10; State v. Vanderhoff, 415 So.2d 190 (La. 1982). In the instant case the defense attorney's question Your son didn't die of malnutrition, did he? is obviously a leading question, for it clearly suggests an answer to the witness. La.R.S. 15:277; McCormick, supra at p. 9. However, the question was asked during cross-examination, a time when leading questions are ordinarily permitted. McCormick, supra; Fed.R.Evid. 611. Nevertheless, we do not believe that the trial court committed reversible error when it limited the defendants' counsel in the questioning of Helen Armstead. This case produced considerable expert medical opinion concerning the actual causes of Arthur's death. The medical testimony given at trial clearly demonstrated the role of starvation in Arthur's death. No expert testimony was offered by defendants to refute the findings of two physicians that Arthur suffered from severe malnutrition. In the face of their extensive testimony, the probative effect of a possible single contrary answer by the lay witness Armstead would have been slight. Thus, the trial court could within its discretion exclude this evidence because its probative value was substantially outweighed by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cummulative evidence. See, State v. Ludwig, 423 So.2d 1073 (La. 1982); See also, Fed.R.Evid. 403; Weinsteins's Evidence § 403[06] (1982). The defendants' complaint of the ruling of the trial court sustaining their objection to the prosecutor's leading questions of the state witness Keesha is meritless. The leading direct examination of Keesha was objected to by defendants' attorney and the objection was sustained by the trial court. The remainder of her testimony was completed without objection. The trial judge may have erred in sustaining the objection because in Louisiana leading questions may be posed to children even during direct examination. See State v. Vanderhoff, 415 So.2d 190 (La.1982). However, any error on this issue inured to the defendants' benefit and they have no grounds to complain on appeal. Accordingly, these assignments of error lack merit.