It is a well established rule that redirect examination of a witness is generally limited to matters which were brought out on cross-examination of that witness. Lloyd v. State, 755 So.2d 12,14(¶ 9) (Miss.Ct.App. 1999); West v. State, 463 So.2d 1048, 1055 (Miss. 1985).
1983), we held that "[t]he trial judge should always permit attorneys to make a record of objectionable testimony or proffer of same in order that this Court may know whether it is relevant or material." See alsoLloyd v.State, 755 So.2d 12, 14 (Miss.Ct.App. 1999) ("When a trial court prevents the introduction of certain evidence, it is incumbent that a proffer be made of the potential testimony of the witness or the point is waived for appellate review."). ¶ 27.
This issue is also waived because Ellzey failed to make a proffer of Henry's prior testimony. Lloyd v. State, 755 So.2d 12, 14 (¶9) (Miss. Ct. App. 1999) ("When a trial court prevents the introduction of certain evidence, it is incumbent that a proffer be made of the potential testimony of the witness or the point is waived for appellate review.").
"When a trial court prevents the introduction of certain evidence, it is incumbent on the offering party to make a proffer of the [evidence,] or the point is waived for appellate review." Redhead v. Entergy Miss. Inc., 828 So.2d 801, 808 (¶19) (Miss. Ct. App. 2001) (quoting Lloyd v. State, 755 So.2d 12, 14 (¶9) (Miss. Ct. App. 1999)). Here, Fred not only failed to make a proffer at trial but also fails to specify on appeal what relevant evidence was excluded.
"The scope of redirect examination, while largely within the discretion of the trial court, is limited to matters brought out during cross-examination." Lloyd v. State , 755 So.2d 12, 14 (¶ 9) (Miss.Ct.App.1999) (citing Blue v. State , 674 So.2d 1184, 1212 (Miss.1996) ).
¶ 25. “The scope of redirect examination, while largely within the discretion of the trial court, is limited to matters brought out during cross-examination. Also we will not disturb a trial court's ruling on matters pertaining to re- direct examination unless there has been a clear abuse of discretion.” Lloyd v. State, 755 So.2d 12, 14 (¶ 9) (Miss.Ct.App.1999). The trial court did not err in excluding the photographs; therefore, this issue is without merit.
¶ 33. “The scope of redirect examination, while largely within the discretion of the trial court, is limited to matters brought out during cross-examination.” Lloyd v. State, 755 So.2d 12, 14 (¶ 9) (Miss.Ct.App.1999). However, “we will not disturb a trial court's ruling on matters pertaining to redirect examination unless there has been a clear abuse of discretion.”
¶33. "The scope of redirect examination, while largely within the discretion of the trial court, is limited to matters brought out during cross-examination." Lloyd v. State, 755 So. 2d 12, 14 (¶9) (Miss. Ct. App. 1999). However, "we will not disturb a trial court's ruling on matters pertaining to redirect examination unless there has been a clear abuse of discretion."
¶25. "The scope of redirect examination, while largely within the discretion of the trial court, is limited to matters brought out during cross-examination. Also we will not disturb a trial court's ruling on matters pertaining to re-direct examination unless there has been a clear abuse of discretion." Lloyd v. State, 755 So. 2d 12, 14 (¶9) (Miss. Ct. App. 1999). The trial court did not err in excluding the photographs; therefore, this issue is without merit.
Manning v. State, 835 So.2d 94, 99-100 (¶ 15) (Miss.Ct.App. 2002) (citing Greer v. State, 755 So.2d 511, 516 (¶ 14) (Miss.Ct.App. 1999)). Consequently, we will not disturb a trial court's ruling on matters pertaining to redirect examination unless there has been a clear abuse of discretion. Farris, 906 So.2d at 119-20 (¶ 20) (citing Lloyd v. State, 755 So.2d 12, 14 (¶ 9) (Miss.Ct.App. 1999)). ¶ 32.