Opinion ID: 1749674
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Did the trial court err in limiting appellant's right to cross-examination?

Text: Although as a general rule great latitude is permissible on cross-examination, the scope thereof is not without limitation. Questions intended to embarrass or humiliate a witness as well as those extending to irrelevant matters, are not permissible. The scope of examination is largely within the sound judicial discretion of the trial court and it has the inherent power to limit examination to relevant factual issues. Hankins v. State, 288 So.2d 866 (Miss. 1974). Aimless repetition and references to immaterial and inflammatory matters should also be avoided. Isaacks v. State, 337 So.2d 928 (Miss. 1976). The record in the present case does not support appellant's contention that its right of cross-examination was limited by the trial court. In all the instances complained of, valid objections were interposed and ruled upon by the trial judge. Appellant does not complain of the trial judge's rulings on the admissibility of these matters. We find no merit in this argument. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Circuit Court of Jackson County should be and the same is hereby affirmed. AFFIRMED. PATTERSON, C.J., SMITH and SUGG, P. JJ., and WALKER, BROOM, ROY NOBLE LEE, BOWLING and HAWKINS, JJ., concur.