Opinion ID: 1679052
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: the lower court erred in allowing the state on rebuttal to contradict the testimony of appellant and appellant's witnesses on immaterial and collateral matters.

Text: Appellant's case-in-chief dealt with two phases, i.e., (1) appellant told his version of what happened on the night of August 19, 1984, when his wife was killed; and (2) relatives and acquaintances of appellant told of his good character and happy marriage. Examples follow: I loved my wife dearly. She was not only my wife, she was my business partner and my companion, and the best friend I have ever had. Appellant's mother testified, And as far as I can say, they had a good marriage... . He worshipped the ground that she walked on. A friend of the victim testified for the defense that the victim was very happy with him [appellant]... . and she was just, you know, bubbling over that she had the life that she was wanting. The State's rebuttal evidence concerning which appellant complains in assigned Error V consisted of questions propounded to appellant's character witnesses on cross-examination, as follows: Have you heard that on occasion he's hit his wife and knocked her across a chair? And if you heard that he threatened his wife with a telephone, threatened to beat her in the presence of her own mother, that wouldn't change your opinion of it either, would it? And if you heard that he cursed his wife, called her all kinds of vile names in the presence of her own mother  have you heard about that? And you've never heard about the defendant ever pushing his wife so hard he knocked across a chair, have you? If he cursed his wife out in front of her own mother, would that change your opinion of him? On cross-examination of appellant, the State asked: Did you have many arguments where it got so bad that you cursed her and threatened to hit her? Do you recall getting so mad because she didn't say what you wanted her to say that you jerked the phone back and told her you ought to shove it through her head? Well, do you recall an incident while your mother-in-law was visiting where you were sitting watching TV and you asked your wife to bring you another drink ... and y'all had a violent quarrel? Appellant failed to object to the above questions at trial. It is elementary that, for preservation of error for review, there must be contemporaneous objections. Lockett v. State, 517 So.2d 1317 (Miss. 1987); Thomas v. State, 517 So.2d 1285 (Miss. 1987); Burney v. State, 515 So.2d 1154 (Miss. 1987); Booker v. State, 511 So.2d 1329 (Miss. 1987); Swindle v. State, 502 So.2d 652 (Miss. 1987); Temple v. State, 498 So.2d 379 (Miss. 1986); Kelly v. State, 493 So.2d 356 (Miss. 1986). The victim's mother testified in the State's rebuttal case that she witnessed three altercations between appellant and the victim in which appellant threatened and cursed the victim. Also, a co-worker of the victim testified that the victim told her of an incident when appellant became drunk and held a knife to her throat. This testimony was objected to by appellant on the ground that the evidence constituted improper rebuttal. This Court has held in a similar case that where a defendant on trial for the murder of his wife testified in his case-in-chief of his great love for his wife, the State was entitled to put on testimony to the contrary in rebuttal. Breakfield v. State, 275 So.2d 860 (Miss. 1973); See generally United States v. Delk, 586 F.2d 513 (5th Cir.1978). Appellant by the testimony of himself and witnesses opened the door to these matters in his case-in-chief. Therefore, he has no ground to complain of the State's attempt to contradict the same in its rebuttal case. The assigned error is rejected.