Opinion ID: 1694339
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Whether the trial erred in allowing the State to cross-examine defense witnesses for their failure to come forward to the police?

Text: Powell next contends that the prosecution improperly questioned five of her witnesses about their failure to come forward to county law enforcement officers with information about the shooting, particularly with regard to the gun story. She claims the prosecution insinuated to the jury that since the witnesses had not come forward earlier, they now were obviously perjuring themselves. In Jenkins v. Anderson, 447 U.S. 231, 100 S.Ct. 2124, 65 L.Ed.2d 86 (1980), the United States Supreme Court stated that [c]ommon law traditionally has allowed witnesses to be impeached by their previous failure to state a fact in circumstances in which that fact naturally would have been asserted. Id. at 239, 100 S.Ct. at 2129. That the defense witnesses did not divulge Barr's statement regarding the gun may be probative to their truthfulness. The Court specifically left to each jurisdiction the opportunity to formulate its own rules of evidence to determine when prior silence is so inconsistent with present statements that impeachment by reference to such silence is probative. Id. at 231, 100 S.Ct. at 2125. The Mississippi Rules of Evidence do not address whether a witness' earlier silence may be used to impeach his testimony. We uphold the State's line of questioning. The prosecution conducted a fair cross-examination in an attempt to expose potential falsehoods; hence, this assignment of error is without merit.