Opinion ID: 1849099
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 12

Heading: whether the state's witness, connie lowery rucker, wrongfully spoke to other state witnesses while being sequestered to the prejudice of the appellant.

Text: ś 54. Conley alleges that the State ordered Rucker to coach and intimidate the other potential witnesses while they were sequestered. There is absolutely no evidence in the record to support these accusations. However, there is some contradicted testimony of whether Rucker spoke about the trial with another witness during sequestration. During post-trial hearings, Conley's former wife, Vernice Kelly, testified that Rucker quizzed her about her belief in the guilt or innocence of Conley, and that Rucker told her that Teronda was stupidâ fell off a turnip truck while they were sequestered in the witness room. However, during the post-trial hearings, Rucker denied making this statement about Teronda and denied quizzing Kelly. We note that the record establishes that between the date of the trial and the post-trial hearing, Kelly had an affair with Rucker's husband. By the time of the post-trial testimony, Rucker was getting a divorce from her husband, and Kelly was living with him. ś 55. The record reveals that neither Rucker nor Kelly were ever called to testify at trial. Therefore, even if the sequestration rule had been violated, it was harmless error since it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained. Stokes v. State, 548 So.2d 118, 124 (Miss.1989). A technical violation of the rule is harmless where the violation did not adversely affect the defendant. Id. ś 56. Also under this proposition, Conley argues that Rucker violated the sequestration rules by speaking with the State's attorneys during a break in the trial. Attorney Dan Smith testified that he and Goodwin spoke with Rucker during a break in testimony to get her opinion on how they should proceed with the re-direct examination of Teronda because Rucker knew Teronda personally. The trial court found that the sequestration rule had not been violated. Had the court found that a violation of sequestration existed, the remedy would have been to not allow the witness to testify. See Douglas v. State, 525 So.2d 1312, 1317 (Miss.1988). Since Rucker was never called to the witness stand by the prosecution or the defense, any violation of the sequestration rule as far as Rucker is concerned is harmless error.