Valentine v. State, 52567
| Decision Date | 25 March 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 52567,52567 |
| Parties | Doyle VALENTINE v. STATE of Mississippi. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Thomas Tucker Buchanan, Billie J. Graham, Laurel, for appellant.
Bill Allain, Atty. Gen. by Karen A. Gilfoy, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.
Before PATTERSON, C. J., and WALKER and BROOM, JJ.
BROOM, Justice, for the Court:
Cross-examination limitations imposed by the trial judge to shield an undercover agent while on the witness stand from interrogation by defense counsel highlight this cause. Sale of marijuana is the offense for which Doyle Valentine (defendant) was convicted in the Circuit Court of the Second Judicial District of Jones County. Sentenced to twenty years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections with twelve years being suspended, he appeals. We reverse.
The state's case rested largely on the testimony of undercover agent Earl Plymale of the Metro Narcotics Division, Jones County Sheriff's Department. Plymale testified that on March 2, 1979, he made a buy as directed from defendant Valentine. Plymale paid $300 to the defendant for the marijuana. Plymale's testimony was corroborated by others, and we think the evidence was sufficient. To the contrary was the defendant's denial that he sold Plymale the marijuana.
DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR IN GRANTING THE STATE'S MOTION IN LIMINE RESTRICTING IMPEACHMENT AND CROSS-EXAMINATION OF UNDERCOVER AGENT EARL PLYMALE? The trial court granted the state's motion in limine and entered an order which required defense counsel
to refrain, by express or implied questions, from commenting on or attempting to solicit answers on the character of the State's Witness Earl Plymale for anything other than his reputation for truth and veracity and then only specifically that reputation.
Somewhat pertinent here is Mississippi Code Annotated § 13-1-11 (1972) which provides for impeachment of a witness by showing past convictions for criminal offenses. Of course, such impeachment is frequently accomplished by means of cross-examination. Sanders v. State, 352 So.2d 822, 824 (Miss.1977) quotes from Baker v. State, 307 So.2d 545 (Miss.1975), which states:
It has long been the law in this state that a witness may be cross-examined touching his conviction of a crime which may extend to misdemeanors as well as infamous crimes.
Recently in Broadus v. State, 392 So.2d 203 (Miss.1980), we reversed Broadus's conviction in a case wherein the testimony of undercover agent Earl Plymale was presented by the state. In Broadus, Justice Sugg, writing for the Court, concluded: "On retrial defendant should be permitted to show all the convictions of the witness regardless of the age of the witness at the time of the convictions."
In sustaining the motion in limine now before us, the lower court in effect ruled that no previous convictions of Plymale could be used for impeachment. The ruling encroached greatly upon other aspects of cross-examination by defense counsel. As stated in the Mississippi Law Journal's Evidence Symposium, "The right to impeach or to attack a witness' credibility is considered the most valid safeguard for providing the trier of fact complete access to the truth." 48 Miss.L.J. 1059, 1070 (1977). In its brief appellee
readily admits to some reservation over entry of an order limiting inquiry solely and specifically to reputation for truth and veracity.
After alluding to "some reservation," the appellee then argues that when such limitation is present the defendant has a duty to make a proffer outside the presence of the jury of "what is intended to be shown...." According to the appellee no such proffer was timely made, and further the cross-examination of Plymale was not in fact unduly restricted because he was cross-examined at length. In effect it is argued that the error was "harmless error."
Our conclusion is that the prejudice or lack of prejudice to the defendant is not measurable on the record before us. No one can anticipate or make precise proffer of what he may develop by employing the important right of cross-examination. Restriction of defense counsel by sustaining the prosecution's motion is too drastic to overlook as "harmless error."
Our established law under §...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Globe Newspaper Co., In re
...and exceptional cases should a presiding judge sequester or keep secret the names of jurors drawn from the jury box." Valentine v. State, 396 So.2d 15, 17 (Miss.1981). Absent specific reasons, the Supreme Court of Colorado has likewise refused to permit a trial judge to withhold juror names......
-
King v. State
...that this information in the interest of justice should be kept confidential or its use limited in whole or in part. In Valentine v. State, 396 So.2d 15, 17 (Miss.1981), this Court expanded the requirements of § 13-5-32 by holding that, before sealing a venire list, the trial court must giv......
-
Story v. State, 85-158
...on any material matter which would bear on the creditability of the witness." ' " (Emphasis added.) Id. at 1027, quoting Valentine v. State, Miss., 396 So.2d 15 (1981). This quotation accurately reflects the Supreme Court's decision in Davis v. Alaska, supra. As interpreted in Davis, the co......
-
Hubbard v. State
...right, but a matter of trial court discretion. Nelson v. State, 257 Ark. 1, 513 S.W.2d 496 (1974). The defense relies upon Valentine v. State, 396 So.2d 15 (Miss.1981), in which this Court reversed and remanded for a new trial where the trial court restricted cross-examination. This case is......