Opinion ID: 1109226
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 21

Heading: whether the lower court erred in allowing the prosecution to ask leading questions

Text: ¶ 56. Tanner asserts that the trial court erred in repeatedly allowing the prosecution to ask witnesses leading questions. The State, however, contends that many of the questions were on redirect and simply rebutted or clarified facts developed on cross-examination. The State further asserts that the Court instructed the State to rephrase its questions on numerous occasions, and that Tanner has failed to show exactly how he was prejudiced or harmed as a result. We agree and find this issue to be without merit. ¶ 57. Tanner specifically refers to the following instances: Q: Did the fact that he got caught selling the diamonds have anything to do with him becoming a suspect? A: Yes, it most definitely did. Q: Now, Mrs. Taylor, during the time you knew Mrs. Wood, when she would dress to go out somewhere, did you ever know her to go out anywhere without wearing this engagement ring? A: No, sir. ¶ 58. In Clemons v. State, 732 So.2d 883, 889 (Miss.1999), this Court defined a leading question as follows: A leading question is one that suggests to the witness the specific answer desired by the examining attorney. Trial courts are given great discretion in permitting the use of such questions, and unless there has been a manifest abuse of discretion resulting in injury to the complaining party, we will not reverse the decision. This is because the harm caused is usually inconsiderable and speculative, and only the trial court was able to observe the demeanor of the witness to determine the harm. To justify a reversal because of the allowance of a leading question, not only is it necessary that there should have been a manifest abuse of discretion, but it is also necessary that the question shall have influenced the answer and that injury resulted. Palmer v. State, 427 So.2d 111, 115 (Miss.1983). ¶ 59. In the first instance, Detective McCann was being asked on redirect whether the stolen diamonds had anything to do with Tanner becoming a suspect. During cross-examination of Detective McCann, Tanner had asked McCann if he became suspicious when Tanner informed him that his fingerprints would be on Wood's safe. The present case is similar to Clemons. In Clemons, this Court noted that a leading question may be used to rebut an implication made on cross-examination and to further develop a witness's testimony. 732 So.2d at 889. Accordingly, the trial court did not err by allowing the State to ask Detective McCann if the diamonds were a reason Tanner became a suspect. ¶ 60. In the second instance, the State, on direct examination, was asking Mrs. Taylor, a friend of the victim, if she had ever known Wood to leave her house without wearing her engagement ring. This question was not leading and merely called for a yes or no answer. There was no suggestion by counsel as to how the witness should respond, and Tanner suffered no injury as a result. Therefore, Tanner's assertion that he was prejudiced by the State's asking leading questions is without merit.