Opinion ID: 1690126
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 13

Heading: did the trial court properly sustain objections by the state concerning jordan's cross-examination of the state's pathologist?

Text: ś 104. After the State's pathologist testified about the trajectory of the bullet, Jordan's counsel attempted to pose a hypothetical question as follows: Let me just give you a hypothetical case. Let's assume that a person is standing on the side of the hill ... and another person is running away from them and they are in a crouched position going say up a hill, would you rule out the possibility that a trajectory could have made the same path in the skull as we have in this case? ś 105. After the State objected, the trial judge ruled that the hypothetical must conform to the proof that was already in the record. See Lester v. State, 692 So.2d 755, 776 (Miss.1997). There was no proof in the record that would support that Jordan was in a crouched position. Therefore, the trial judge's ruling on this issue is not erroneous. Jordan could have rectified the situation by asking the same hypothetical without references to crouching or by requesting that the State specify what parts of the hypothetical did not conform to the record. ś 106. In addition, any possible error was harmless since the State's pathologist admitted on cross-examination that Jordan's theory was within a rare degree of probability. While the pathologist did not enthusiastically support Jordan's theory, he did not exactly rule the theory out either. Therefore, this issue is without merit.