Opinion ID: 1749114
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Did the trial court err in failing to grant a mistrial when the district attorney caused appellant to display the condition of his teeth to the jury?

Text: Appellant, during cross-examination, was asked by the district attorney to step down from the witness stand and display the condition of his teeth to the jury. On appeal, he argues the effect of this action was to bolster the state's case and prejudiced the jury against him due to the fact that there was no evidence before the jury as to the condition of the assailant's teeth. In King v. State, 230 So.2d 209 (Miss. 1970), which involved felonious possession of narcotic drugs, defendant, after taking the witness stand, was compelled to exhibit his arm to the jury, showing festered bumps on his arm. We stated: We are of the opinion that the defendant was not prejudiced by being required to exhibit his arm to the jury while he was on the witness stand testifying in his own defense. The appellant voluntarily took the witness stand and, being a witness, he was required to answer questions on cross examination related to the issue. McCormick on Evidence § 131, page 274 (1954); 8 Wigmore on Evidence § 2265 (McNaughton rev. 1961), page 386; Tyson v. State, 237 Miss. 149, 112 So.2d 563 (1959); People v. Widener, 220 Cal. App.2d 826, 34 Cal. Rptr. 130 (1963). (230 So.2d at 211-12). Appellant having voluntarily taken the witness stand in his own defense was not prejudiced by being required to exhibit the condition of his teeth to the jury. Based on the foregoing, this case is affirmed. AFFIRMED. PATTERSON, C.J., SUGG and WALKER, P. JJ., and BROOM, ROY NOBLE LEE, BOWLING, HAWKINS and DARDEN, JJ., concur.