Opinion ID: 1671742
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: whether the trial court erred in allowing the prosecution to call wevlyn james as a hostile witness.

Text: ¶ 28. Count I of the indictment charged McFarland with vote fraud regarding the absentee ballot of Lottie James, who died prior to trial. Wevlyn James, Lottie James' granddaughter, was the Wilkinson County Tax Assessor and Collector, and she had been charged with vote fraud in connection with the October 8, 1991 elections, to which charge she had pleaded guilty. Concerning the charge against McFarland, she had initially given investigators a statement that the signatures on the ballot were in fact her grandmother's, but she later gave a statement implicating McFarland. ¶ 29. Wevlyn James, when called by the State during its case-in-chief, testified that she was telephoned by Cal with a request to send her an absentee ballot for her grandmother, that she received the ballot, that she could not take the ballot to her grandmother so she called McFarland and told him that she would give it back to him, that she took the ballot and placed it in McFarland's car, and that the signature thereafter placed on the envelope was not her grandmother's. During the prosecution's examination of her, the defense objected to the prosecutor asking leading questions and being argumentative with the witness. The prosecutor then requested permission to lead the witness as a hostile witness, which request the trial court granted. McFarland argues that Wevlyn James' testimony was consistent with her second statement given to investigators, and that because the prosecution was therefore not surprised by her testimony, the trial court erred in allowing the prosecution to ask leading questions. This assignment is without merit. ¶ 30. It is within the trial judge's discretion to allow leading questions, and unless there has been an abuse of discretion to the prejudice of the complaining party, it is not reversible error. Jones v. State, 606 So.2d 1051, 1059 (Miss. 1992). Mississippi Rule of Evidence 611(c) provides that [w]hen a party calls a hostile witness, an adverse party, or a witness identified with an adverse party, interrogation may be by leading questions. In Harris v. Buxton T.V., Inc., 460 So.2d 828, 833 (Miss. 1984), we set forth the following test to determine how closely the witness must be identified with the adverse party in order to be considered hostile: (1) If the witness' acts or omissions are the predicate for a party's claim or defense, ..., then that witness is ordinarily sufficiently identified with an adverse party and may be called as an adverse witness and interrogated by leading questions. (2) If the conduct of the witness plays such an integral part in the transaction or occurrence which is the subject of the action and which gives rise to... potential liability, ..., then again the witness is said to be sufficiently identified with the adverse party so that the witness may be called as an adverse witness and cross examined. The Comment to Rule 611 states that the Advisory Committee is cognizant of the Harris decision but considers the interpretation and application of the phrase identified with the adverse party to be broader than that expressed in Harris. ¶ 31. In the case sub judice, Wevlyn James' testimony makes clear that her acts were a predicate for the State's charge against McFarland, and that her conduct played an integral part in the occurrence which was the subject of the prosecution. Thus, even without using the broader interpretation suggested by the Comment to Rule 611, this Court holds that Wevlyn James was sufficiently identified under Harris with the adverse party to permit leading questions. Furthermore, before the prosecutor requested permission to lead her, she appeared very reluctant to identify McFarland as the man who called her and as the man whom she later called. She testified that when a man identifying himself as Cal called her, I assumed it was Calvin McFarland, but some people sound the same on the telephone. He did not give his last name. When asked whom it was that she called after receiving the ballot, she stated that I'm assuming I called Calvin. Then, after the court granted the prosecutor's request to ask leading questions, she admitted that she had known McFarland for many years and recognized his voice, and that she dialed McFarland's number and spoke with him. Clearly, Wevlyn James initially was less than forthcoming in answering the prosecutor's questions, and thus leading questions were necessary to develop her testimony. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the prosecutor to examine Wevlyn James as an hostile witness.