Opinion ID: 1712087
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: whether the trial court erred by unfairly limiting sanders's efforts to present a full and complete defense to the charges against him in violation of the united states and mississippi constitutions.

Text: ¶ 8. Sanders argues that he was denied his fundamental right to a fair trial because the trial court did not allow him to present his full and complete theories of defense to the jury. Specifically, Sanders states that he was not allowed to fully disclose his past and present relationship with Watts to the jury. Sanders contends that the entire history of his relationship with Watts is material, relevant, and probative of the issues. He argues that this testimony goes directly to his then present state of mind at the time of the struggle and delivery of the fatal blow to the head. At trial Sanders testified as follows: DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. SMITH [Sanders's attorney]: Q. Where did you meet Marvin Watts? A. I met Marvin Watts when I was fifteenwhen I was fifteen years old. Q. Where did you meet him and how did you meet him? A. I had ran away from home, and Marvin had offered me a place to stay, so I moved to Canton, I went to Canton, Mississippi with him. Q. Did you ever live with Marvin Watts? A. Yes. Q. And how old were you? A. Fifteen. Q. And he was much older then? A. Yes. Q. And could you tell us a little bit or tell the jury a little bit about what happened when you lived with him. BY MR. DAVIDSON [for the State]: Your Honor, if it please the Court, I'm going to object to the relevance of this and what happened during this period of time. They made a statement that it is an issue of self-defense. This has nothing to do with the issue of self-defense. They can go into the relationship as it pertained to this particular circumstance, but going back sixteen years ago has no relevance whatsoever whether or not this defendant was entitled to use self-defense. BY MR. SMITH: Your Honor, it does go to the issue of whether or not this defendant feared Marvin Watts and the fact that he did force him to have sex with him before. BY MR. DAVIDSON: It's not relevant to the issue. BY MR. SMITH: It is relevant, Your Honor. He's forced the guy to have sex with him. It's relevant. BY THE COURT: I'll let you briefly ask him but let's move on after this because there is a question about BY MR. SMITH (Continuing) Q. Did you have a sexual relationship with Marvin Watts at that time? A. Yes. Q. And what kind of sexual relationship? A. Uh, uh Q. Just take your time. It's okay. A. Marvin asked mefirst time I had sex with Marvin, Marvin had oral sex on me and BY MR. DAVIDSON:Judge, I'm going to renew my objection. This is not relevant towards the issue of self-defense. BY MR. SMITH: Your Honor, it is relevant. Goes to fear. BY MR. DAVIDSON: Fear sixteen years previous? BY THE COURT: What time frame are we talking about here? BY MR. SMITH: Your Honor, sixteen years ago, but I mean this is relevant to whether or not he had forced him before. ¶ 9. The State argues that the nature and extent of the relationship between Sanders and Watts sixteen years ago is too far removed to be relevant. Further, the State argues that Sanders was able to get before the jury the fact that he had been involved in a homosexual relationship with Watts sixteen years earlier, but did not wish to continue that type of relationship. The State contends that this evidence was brought out in the testimony of the State's witnesses, the statements and testimony of Sanders, and in arguments to the jury. ¶ 10. Sanders failed to proffer the facts to which he would testify had the objection not been sustained. In the absence of such a showing, this Court is helpless to determine whether or not the witness's testimony would be material. Priest v. State, 275 So.2d 79, 82 (Miss.1973). This Court has stated the following rule with reference to proffers: [T]he rule is that `when a party would seek a reversal because of excluded testimony, he must either place the witness on the stand, ask the questions, and have the answers made of record, or else the witness must be presented, and there must be a specific statement of what the answers or testimony of the witness would be, if allowed, so that the court may see from the record itself whether the offered evidence would be material and of benefit to the merits of the case and whether its exclusion was actually harmful and prejudicial to the offerer.' White v. State, 507 So.2d 98, 101-02 (Miss. 1987) (citations omitted). In the case before us there is no showing of any attempt by defense counsel to preserve properly the testimony of Sanders. Therefore, we find no error.