Opinion ID: 1602016
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: whether the trial judge erred in allowing defendants to ask leading questions of each other's witnesses.

Text: ¶ 30. The plaintiffs contend that the judge erroneously allowed BCH and Wright to ask one another's witnesses leading questions. Leading questions were asked, examples of which are: BCH counsel to Wright: In fact, it would have been below the standard of care not to have used it [the Blanketrol unit] wouldn't it? BCH counsel to Wright: In fact, Dr. Wright, it was an absolute medical necessity to use this blanket on this patient this night under these circumstances, wasn't it? Wright's counsel to Pam Williams (BCH witness): Okay. So Tammy Winters had already gone to Ms. Guice down in Biloxi and threatened to sue the hospital when Marla talked to you; is that correct? ¶ 31. BCH and Wright contend that it was appropriate for them to ask leading questions as they were cross-examining witnesses and they are not aligned parties as they have adverse interests. Rule 611(c) of the Mississippi Rules of Evidence states that [o]rdinarily, leading questions should be permitted on cross-examination. When a party calls ... an adverse party, or a witness identified with an adverse party, interrogation may be by leading questions. This Court has stated that [i]t is within the trial judge's discretion to allow leading questions, and unless there has been an abuse of discretion to the prejudice of the complaining party, it is not reversible error. Jones v. State, 606 So.2d 1051, 1059 (Miss.1992). ¶ 32. The trial judge spent much time considering this issue. He ultimately determined that there was sufficient adversity as to the theories of defense for each party to consider them adverse, and thus he allowed them to ask leading questions of one another's witnesses. Considering that one of Wright's theories of defense was that if the jury determined the blanket was the cause of Tammy's injuries then the hospital was at fault, not him, we find that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion. Thus, we find this allegation of error to be meritless.