 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Taylor v. State1/25/2000
o cross-examine them. Overruled. Proceed.
. On cross-examination of the witness, counsel for Taylor took full advantage of the opportunity to present discrepancies to the jury and introduce other documents not pointed out by the State as having come from employees other than Taylor. The State then clarified that any missing documents, like the now infamous brown envelopes, should be ignored because the information contained on those envelopes could be extracted from other documents like the ledger books and receipts. All of the documents available to the court were submitted to the jury for their consideration in the matter. As the State aptly argued, the rule of completeness is not tantamount to a rule of duplication.
. Taylor also alleges that it is clear that the evidence relied upon to convict her was tampered with since some of the brown envelopes were missing. This allegation is absolutely groundless as there is not one scintilla of evidence offered as proof in support of this argument, and it is therefore dismissed summarily along with her ninth allegation of error.
X. THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED PLAIN ERROR IN ALLOWING INTRODUCTION OF THE EXPERT OPINION OF BURT HANEY OVER OBJECTION OF DEFENSE COUNSEL.
. Again this Court is left to ponder where, specifically, this error occurred in the trial record. In his brief, counsel for Taylor does not see fit to indulge the reader with any clue as to the location of the alleged error save that it occurred within the sixty pages of transcribed direct testimony of Burt Haney. It must be assumed that Taylor is trying to ground her allegation of error in the following exchange:
MR. BULLARD: Who took the $43,000?
MR. NEELY: We would object.
THE COURT: Objection will be sustained.
MR. BULLARD: From all of your indications from your research using the police receipt books, the bank deposits, the city ledgers, to who does everything point to having taken the $43,000?
MR. NEELY: Same objection.
THE COURT: I'm going to let the jury decide that ultimate issue. Objection will be sustained.
MR. NEELY: Your Honor, we would like to have all of the testimony of Mr. Haney stricken and all exhibits which have been presented on his behalf stricken on the basis of failure to properly qualify Mr. Haney as an expert and failure to lay the proper predicate. There has been absolutely no foundation laid for his opinions or statements at all . . . .
THE: COURT: Very well. The witness has been testifying to facts. I do not recall that he has expressed an opinion. In fact, I sustained your objection as to the question dealing with his opinion as to who took the money. Your objection will be noted. It will be overruled.
. "Ordinarily, error in the asking of an improper question is cured by not permitting it to be answered." Brady v. State, 722 So. 2d 151, 158 (Miss. Ct. App. 1998). The trial court properly sustained the objection to the opinion testimony of Haney in the above quoted instance, and the trial judge addressed Taylor's characterization of Haney's overall testimony as opinion based rather than factual. He disagreed and ruled accordingly. Since Taylor offers the Court no further guidance as to where the alleged error occurred, we find Taylor's claim meritless.
XIII.THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED PLAIN ERROR IN DENYING DEFENSE COUNSEL'S MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL.
. Taylor chose to cite Idaho law to support this allegation of error. Mississippi, of course, has ample case law on point regarding the standard employed in reviewing a motion for a new trial. We will therefore look to precedent
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Mississippi DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|