Opinion ID: 1630934
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: ) Plaintiffs' witnesses were invited to make improper references to religious belief to enhance their credibility.

Text: ¶ 21. The Tuckiers called two former Cooper employees to the stand and questioned each about their motives for testifying in this case. On direct examination of witness Jimmy Oats, counsel for the Tuckiers asked, point-blank what brings you all the way to Batesville, Mississippi, to testify in a case that involves people that you don't even know? Over defense counsel's objection, Oats answered, Well, I don'tI understand that I can't live with myself if I don't tell the truth and don't try to do what I think the Lord would have me do, and I think the Lord wants me to tell the truth and be honest about what I do and the way I live my life. And I don'tI'm sorry. I don't think He would like for me to let things go and not stand up for what I know is right and what I believe is right without being punished for it. ¶ 22. Another former employee, Richard Angell, was similarly questioned on redirect examination when counsel asked, And why are you here testifying? Angell's response was, it's just too few a people that are brave enough to do it, I guess. I just felt like it was a Christian responsibility. Cooper did not object to this exchange. ¶ 23. Cooper objects to these questions and answers stating that they were in violation of M.R.E. 610 on religious beliefs and opinions, which states, evidence of the beliefs or opinions of a witness on matters of religion is not admissible for the purpose of showing that by reason of their nature his credibility is impaired or enhanced. However, the comment to Rule 610 states, this rule prohibits impeaching a witness by questioning him concerning his religious beliefs and opinions. It does not prohibit questioning him as to those beliefs and opinions when testing his bias or interest. ¶ 24. Cooper argues that these questions were asked in order to bolster the witnesses credibility, which would be in violation of the rules of evidence, i.e., M.R.E. 608(a). However, Cooper attempted to discredit these witnesses as early as its opening statement, when it described the witnesses as disgruntled employees who were motivated by animosity for Cooper. In Cooper's opening statement, it stated that Oats and Angell had filed many grievances with Cooper while employed because they became dissatisfied with the discipline or money they were receiving from the company. Cooper also stated that Oats and Angell did not file grievances concerning the tires made nor their components. Therefore, from the beginning, Cooper presented their two former employees to the jury as ones testifying because of animosity towards Cooper and therefore opened the door. ¶ 25. It is clear from the record that the Tuckiers questioned their witnesses for the purposes of establishing their motives for testifying in this matter and for rebutting the purported motives presented to the jury during Cooper's opening statement. Therefore, the Tuckiers were not acting in violation of Rule 610 on religious beliefs, and the trial court properly allowed these questions and the witness responses. The Tuckiers did not ask their witnesses specifically about their religious beliefs or opinions, but simply their motivations for testifying. The trial court is affirmed as to this sub-issue.