Opinion ID: 1845868
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Did the trial court err by permitting the prosecutor to engage in an improper line of questioning concerning the immorality of the appellant?

Text: During the direct examination of state's witness Lillie Jefferson, Ms. Jefferson testified she had never had sexual intercourse with appellant and that she had never accepted a watch from appellant in exchange for sexual favors. The appellant raised no objection to that testimony. When appellant took the stand, he testified he was married and had two children, with his wife expecting a third. Appellant then testified concerning two acts of sexual intercourse in which he allegedly engaged with Lillie Jefferson. According to appellant's testimony, the second act of sexual intercourse with Ms. Jefferson was in exchange for a watch, but appellant testified he reneged on the deal. On cross-examination, appellant was asked by the prosecutor, Do you feel as though, Mr. Armstead, that what you have testified here to today, which is sexual relations with Lillie Jefferson while you were married and attempt to have sexual relations with Tammy Rhodes while you were married, is this something that goes on often during your marital life? The defense attorney objected, but was overruled. He subsequently requested a continuing objection. Appellant was next asked by the prosecutor, Mr. Armstead, the night that you went over to see Tammy, there is no doubt about the fact that you were married then; right? Appellant now contends the prosecutor's questions were highly prejudicial and induced the jurors to convict him based on factors extraneous to the charges in his indictments. Appellant relies on Hughes v. State, 470 So.2d 1046 (Miss. 1985). In Hughes, a defendant indicted for the sale of marijuana was examined by the prosecutor concerning another marijuana-related incident and the fact that the defendant lived with a woman without the benefit of marriage. This Court reversed the conviction in Hughes, holding: When proof of a wholly unrelated drug offense plus proof that Hughes was having an illicit relationship with a woman without benefit of marriage were placed before the jury, the chance that Hughes would be found guilty by reason of factors extraneous to the charge in the indictment was substantially increased in a legally impermissible way. Id. at 1049. The present case is distinguishable from Hughes because the adulterous escapades of the appellant were first explored by the appellant himself as part of his defense. Appellant was apparently attempting to prove Lillie Jefferson, aunt of the prosecutrix, was biased against him because he reneged on his promise to give her a watch in exchange for sex. A defendant is not prejudiced by testimony concerning his behavior prior to the indictment in question where he himself testifies to that behavior. Butler v. State, 375 So.2d 1039, 1041 (Miss. 1979). In addition, the testimony elicited by the prosecutor was much less graphic or inflammatory than the testimony already given by appellant himself on direct examination. For those reasons, this Court holds this assignment of error is without merit.