Opinion ID: 2497005
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: whether the state impermissibly asked a child sexual-assault victim leading questions.

Text: ¶ 18. Anderson argues that the trial court committed reversible error by allowing the State to lead the victim concerning the dates of the alleged acts charged in Counts I and II of the indictment. [6] Count I of the indictment charges Anderson with statutory rape on or about November, 2006; Count II of the indictment charges Anderson with statutory rape on or about November 25, 2006. Anderson objects to the following question asked of Allison by the prosecutor on redirect examination: State: Allison, did your dad have sex with you anytime before Thanksgiving in that month? And you don't have to point to a day, just did he. I'm asking if he did. Allison: I think he did, but I'm not quite sure. During direct examination, however, Allison had testified that Anderson had intercourse with her during November 2006, both before and after Thanksgiving. ¶ 19. Anderson claims that, without the leading question on redirect examination, the State would not have been able to present sufficient evidence as to Counts I and II. [7] However, we note that there was no objection to this question at trial. ¶ 20. Mississippi Rule of Evidence 611(c) generally prohibits leading questions and states: [l]eading questions should not be used on the direct examination of a witness except as may be necessary to develop [the witness's] testimony. Rule 611's prohibition applies to redirect examination as well. See Parker v. State, 378 So.2d 662, 663 (Miss.1980). With regard to the exception in Rule 611(c), this Court has found that the `classic example' of a situation ripe for leading questions on direct is where the witness is a child. Keyes v. State, 733 So.2d 812, 814 (Miss. 1999) (citations omitted). In Keyes, the Court found that leading questions were appropriate for a ten-year-old sexual-assault victim. Id. ¶ 21. While leading questions generally are prohibited on direct examination, the facts of this case fit squarely within the exception in Rule 611(c). The witness is a young, sexual-abuse victim, and the question was used to clarify her testimony regarding the dates alleged in the indictments. Accordingly, we find no merit in this assignment of error.