Opinion ID: 1749396
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: did the trial court err in permitting cross-examination of witness, mrs. jackie furr, concerning her past and present relationships with defendant

Text: Appellant contends that it was error to permit, over objection, cross-examination of Mrs. Jackie Furr that brought out that she was formerly married to appellant, one child was born of that union, and appellant was contributing partly to the support of that child. Miss. Code Ann. § 13-1-13 (1972), provides, in part: Any witness may be examined touching his interest in the cause.... Mrs. Jackie Furr testified that she was present when the check was delivered to Kincade. Her testimony tended to corroborate Parker's claim that there was a delayed payment deal between the parties. On cross-examination it was brought out that the witness and Parker had formerly been married to each other and that Parker was obligated to contribute partially to the support of the minor child of that marriage. Jimmy Stanfield, who was called as a rebuttal witness, testified that the then Mrs. Parker was not present at the time the check was delivered. The right to cross-examination of witnesses and to test the interest of the witnesses in the outcome of the litigation has been held to be a valuable and highly protected right. The right of cross-examination has been limited only to clear cases of irrelevancy, trespass beyond admissible grounds, or extremes of continual aimless repetition. Patrick v. State, 285 So.2d 165 (Miss. 1973). We think the pecuniary interest of this witness in having Parker free of confinement was a relevant area of cross-examination. In Sanders v. State, 352 So.2d 822 (Miss. 1977), this Court stated: Wide latitude is to be allowed on cross-examination to show bias or motive for the purpose of affecting credibility. Cody v. State, 167 Miss. 150, 148 So. 627 (1983). Although the extent of this cross-examination lies within the sound discretion of the trial court, its ruling will be reversed when an abuse of that discretion is shown. McElroy, Mississippi Evidence, § 183, pp. 514-515 (1955). The judgment of the trial court is supported by the evidence, and it was not error for the State to cross-examine the witness Mrs. Furr about her relationship and dealings with appellant. AFFIRMED. PATTERSON, C.J., WALKER and ROY NOBLE LEE, P.JJ., and HAWKINS, DAN M. LEE, PRATHER, ROBERTSON, SULLIVAN and ANDERSON, JJ., concur.