Opinion ID: 1716770
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Did the trial court err in limiting appellant's right to a full and effective cross-examination of the complaining witness?

Text: On cross-examination, Wilkinson was asked whether or not he had filed a civil suit against McGee, and he replied in the affirmative. He further stated that his attorney had read to him over the telephone the contents of a declaration, that they were correct, and that the declaration had been filed with his approval. The apparent purpose of the examination was to impeach Wilkinson on his direct testimony. The interrogation should have been permitted under Vinson v. Glenn, 338 So.2d 385 (Miss. 1976). However, no proffer was made of the testimony nor was a statement dictated into the record to indicate what was proposed to be shown by the examination. Under Newell v. State, 209 Miss. 653, 48 So.2d 332 (1950), and other cases following Newell, the trial judge is not put in error without such a record, since this Court cannot assume what would have developed from the examination.