Opinion ID: 1855720
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: whether the trial court committed error with respect to the patrol officer's refusal to permit stidham to look at the radar reading.

Text: ¶ 22. Stidham contends that there was no just reason for the patrol officer's refusal to permit him to look at the radar reading on the radar device, and that this suppression of evidence constitutes a denial of his due process rights, though no authority is cited in support of this claim. It is the appellant's duty to show by plausible argument with supporting authorities, in what way the lower court erred. See Turner v. State, 721 So.2d 642, 648 (Miss. 1998); Wood v. Gulf States Capital Corp., 217 So.2d 257, 273 (Miss.1968). This claim is without merit. ¶ 23. The State argues that Stidham is procedurally barred from arguing this assignment of error as he did not contemporaneously object at trial. Williams v. State, 684 So.2d 1179, 1203 (Miss.1996). We agree. Further, this Court is unaware of any authority which gives a speeding suspect the right to inspect the officer's radar device. Therefore, Stidham's argument presents only the question of whether the officer's refusal to permit him to look at the radar reading casts doubt on whether the officer was testifying truthfully as to the result displayed on the device. As noted by the State, this point was made during cross-examination of Glenn. As such, it was a question relating to the weight of the testimony properly left for the jury to decide. Eakes v. State, 665 So.2d 852, 872 (Miss. 1995). Accordingly, this assignment of error is without merit.