Opinion ID: 1652224
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: whether the chancellor erred in objecting from the bench to the testimony of daniel j. o'beirne.

Text: ¶ 30. The chancellor's remarks when Mr. O'Beirne took the stand create the basis of this assignment of error: [JURY RETURNED] THE COURT: All right, you may call your first witness. MR. O'BEIRNE: Your honor, as a witness of the Will I will be the first witness. THE COURT: No, Sir. MR. O'BEIRNE: I beg your pardon. We've already covered that. THE COURT: That was about a deposition. Let's go back in my chambers. The Smiths first cite Nichols, a case involving plain error where the trial judge directly questioned witnesses more than once and gave a quite open display of incredulity before the jury both of the plaintiff's case and of the plaintiff himself. Nichols v. Munn, 565 So.2d 1132, 1137 (Miss.1990). The second case cited by the appellants involves a trial judge who commented in admitting evidence that the sun would be in driver's eyes at time and place of accident, referring to his own experience in similar circumstances. Young v. Anderson, 249 Miss. 539, 163 So.2d 253 (1964). ¶ 31. The court's comments here consisting of No. and That was about a deposition. Let's go back in my chambers. fail to rise to the level of error described in Nichols or Young. After the conversation in chambers, Mr. O'Beirne was allowed to testify. The chancellor's concern seems to have been over the ethical ramifications of a lawyer testifying in a lawsuit in which he is participating. While we held that a lawyer could serve as an advocate although he was also a witness in Pittman v. Currie, 414 So.2d 423, 426-27 (Miss.1982), it is easy to understand the trial court's concern over this ethical matter. We find no error in the chancellor's comments.