Opinion ID: 1152477
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: whether the lower court erred in interrupting the cross examination of clanton and permitting him to privately confer with his counsel

Text: During the cross-examination of Clanton, the court interrupted and allowed a private conference between Clanton and his counsel. Mississippi recognizes the wide latitude given to a trial judge concerning the examination of witnesses. In Jackson Yellow Cab Co. v. Alexander, 246 Miss. 268, 148 So.2d 674 (1963), this Court stated, The state and federal courts of this country have universally recognized that the trial judge has the authority to see to it that the examination of the witness is conducted in an orderly manner and a wide discretion is given him in controlling such examination. He may state wherein a line of examination is immaterial and restrict the examination, so long as he does not say anything calculated to influence the testimony of the witness or cause the jury to be prejudiced against one of the parties. See 53 Am.Jur., Trials, Sec. 75, p. 74; 3 Am.Jur., Appeal and Error, Sec. 1056, p. 606; Birmingham Ry. & Electric Company v. Ellard, 135 Ala. 433, 33 So. 276; Olson v. Solverson, 71 Wis. 663, 38 N.W. 329; Rankin v. Sharples, 206 Ill. 301, 69 N.E. 9. Id. at 278-79, 148 So.2d 674. While this was an abuse of discretion, we find no reversible error committed. However, one should recognize that by interrupting a cross-examination and allowing a witness to privately confer with his own counsel, an assignment of error on appeal will almost certainly be argued. REVERSED AND RENDERED IN PART; AFFIRMED IN PART. PATTERSON, C.J., WALKER and ROY NOBLE LEE, P.JJ., and DAN M. LEE, PRATHER and ANDERSON, JJ., concur. ROBERTSON, J., dissents. HAWKINS, J., not participating.