Opinion ID: 1830839
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 21

Heading: Whether the Circuit Court erred in overruling the Appellant's objection to the Assistant District Attorney interrogating Julie Hughes Sanders about blood during her redirect examination.

Text: ¶ 129. Hughes next contends that it was error to allow the State to redirect Mrs. Hughes Sanders concerning her prior testimony and statements about the blood stain Hughes had on his pants the day of Galloway's disappearance. This issue is without merit. ¶ 130. The general rule is that redirect is limited to matters brought out on cross-examination.... Moreover, the trial court has broad discretion in allowing or disallowing redirect examinations of witnesses. West v. State, 463 So.2d 1048, 1055 (Miss.1985)( citing Cole v. Tullos, 228 Miss. 815, 90 So.2d 32 (1956) and Tucker v. Tucker, 74 Miss. 93, 19 So. 955 (1896)); also see Blue v. State, 674 So.2d 1184, 1212 (Miss.1996)(The scope of redirect examination, while largely within the discretion of the trial court, is limited to matters brought out during cross-examination. Furthermore, this Court will not disturb a trial court's ruling on matters pertaining to redirect unless there has been a clear abuse of discretion.)( citing Evans v. State, 499 So.2d 781 (Miss.1986) and Miss. Unif.Crim. R. Cir. Ct. P. 5.08). ¶ 131. During cross-examination of Mrs. Hughes Sanders, Hughes elicited that she had been improperly coerced by her husband and that she was under pressure from investigators when making her prior statement. She also flatly stated that some of her previous testimony was a lie. The trial judge allowed the State to inquire about these matters on re-direct based on this fact. ¶ 132. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the State to inquire about the blood stain on redirect, especially in light of the fact that the trial judge allowed Hughes a full re-cross of Mrs. Hughes Sanders about the uniform.