Opinion ID: 859592
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: robert and linda salley’s testimony

Text: AFTER THE RULE WAS INVOKED Moss’ second contention of error is that the trial court should not have allowed either Robert Salley or Linda Salley to testify because they were in the courtroom for a portion of the previous witness’ testimony. Moss contends that since Rule 615 of the Mississippi Rules of Evidence was invoked, it was reversible error for the trial court to allow Robert and Linda Salley to proceed with their testimony. Rule 615 of the Mississippi Rules of Evidence states in pertinent part: At the request of the party the court shall order witnesses excluded so that they cannot hear the testimony of other witnesses, and that it may make the order of its own motion. M.R.E. 615. This rule serves to discourage a witness from tailoring her testimony to what she has heard from the stand. Baine v. State, 606 So. 2d 1076, 1083 (Miss. 1992). As indicated by the mandatory language, the trial court must apply it when a party invokes it. Baine, 606 So. 2d at 1083. Once the rule has been violated, the remedy lies within the court’s discretion. Id. However, the failure of the lower court judge to order a mistrial due to a violation of the witness sequestration rule will not justify a reversal on appeal absent a showing of prejudice sufficient to constitute an abuse of discretion. Powell v. State, 662 So. 2d 1095, 1098 (Miss. 1995) (citations omitted). Upon reviewing the record, we see that the trial court overruled the defense’s motion to exclude Robert and Linda Salley from testifying. In his ruling, the judge stated, The motion is overruled. The witnesses were not in the courtroom more than ten seconds, and heard perhaps two questions asked of the witness, Deputy Williams, regarding his employment. The Court finds these questions have no bearing on the actual facts in this case, and the objection is overruled. The record does not reflect that any prejudice resulted. Robert Salley testified in great detail of the events leading up to the shooting, and immediately after the shooting. His testimony was basically corroborated by Linda Salley’s testimony. Deputy Williams’ testimony simply began with his employment history, and then recounted his actions once he got to the scene of the incident after the shootings. It simply does not appear from the testimony that either Robert Salley or Linda Salley could have tailored their testimony from what, if anything, they heard of Deputy Williams’ testimony. There is no reversible error here.