Opinion ID: 1709217
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: was the state's attempt to impeach its own witness, annette james, by the use of a prior statement, so prejudicial as to require a mistrial?

Text: Annette James had apparently given a statement to the police shortly after the incident which detailed the shooting of Sims Blanchard. At Simpson's trial (which occurred over two years after the incident) Ms. James was beset by a rather severe loss of memory. She testified generally to the events of the evening, including Blanchard's visit to the apartment, and Simpson's subsequent arrival and search for his keys, but then the following exchange took place: Q. What did you hear your mother say? A. What did I hear her say? Q. Yes, to Pete? A. I don't know. Q. You don't know or you don't remember? A. I don't remember. Q. What did you hear Pete Simpson say to your mother? A. I told you it was some arguing, but I don't remember what was said. At that point, the prosecutor approached the witness and asked to show you something and let you read it and see if it will refresh your memory. The jury was excused and counsel for the defendant objected to the State's attempt at impeachment. The prosecutor responded That is the only thing I am trying to do, refresh her recollection on this point by the use of a statement which she gave to law enforcement officers shortly after it happened. The court allowed the witness to read the statement, then she was questioned about it. Q. All right, you remember more details after reading this statement than you did before? A. Not really. Q. No, I'm asking you, after you read this statement can you better tell us about what happened that night? A. No. The jury was then returned to the courtroom. The prosecutor resumed his questioning about the shooting, asking Ms. James about Simpson's search for Blanchard, after he discovered his hat and coat in the living room. James admitted that he came back to her room looking for Blanchard, then there was the following exchange: Q. What did he say about Sims Blanchard when he came into that room? A. I don't know what he said. Q. May I approach the witness again, your Honor? BY JUDGE WICKER: Yes, you may. Q. Miss James, let me ask you to read the last part of this  Counsel for the defendant immediately objected, and the objection was sustained. Finally, at the end of James' direct examination, the prosecutor asked: Q. Miss James, a day or so after this happened, do you remember talking to a policeman about what happened that night? A. I know it was afterward, I don't know how many days. I don't know whether it was a day or two or what. Q. All right, you do remember talking to him. Did you tell him what happened? A. Yes, I was telling him what I knew. Q. Did you sign a statement as to what happened? At that point, counsel for the defendant objected, which was sustained, and moved for a mistrial, which was overruled. It is the court's refusal to grant a mistrial which is assigned as error. The State contends that the prosecutor was not attempting to impeach its own witness, but was merely laying a predicate for introduction of the statement. It further contends that the court erred in not allowing the witness to see the statement. However, the record indicates that Ms. James did see the statement, and testified that it would not help her recall the events of that night. Thus, the State failed in establishing an essential criteria necessary for introduction of a prior recorded statement: that, having read or referred to it, the witness's recollection is refreshed. Furthermore, the State did not lay the proper predicate for impeaching its witness. Knowing that Annette James was still living with her mother and Simpson, and that her mother had subsequently married Simpson, the State could reasonably expect her to be hostile on the stand, and, thus, cannot claim surprise. In any event, the issue here is whether the questioning of Ms. James entitled Simpson to a mistrial. The record shows that, after the third reference to the prior statement, the defendant objected, which objection was sustained, and immediately moved for a mistrial. In Gardner v. State, 455 So.2d 796 (Miss. 1984), we refused to find error in such a situation, holding: Since the trial judge sustained the first objection, no prejudice resulted to the appellant from the question. This court has held that where an objection to a question is sustained and no request is made that the jury be instructed to disregard the question, there is no error. Id. at 800.