 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Savannah v. State9/17/2002
ol content was not relevant and inadmissible.
. Evidence of a victim's character is ordinarily irrelevant. M.R.E. 404(a). The victim's character becomes relevant in cases where the defendant asserts an arguable claim of self-defense. McGilberry v. State, 797 So. 2d 940, 941 ( ) (Miss. 2001). Evidence of a victim's bad character is relevant where it is unclear which party was the initial aggressor. Id. Testimony given at trial indicated that Savannah was standing eight feet away from Gilmore when he shot her. Self-defense was not an arguable defense at that point. We find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the victim's blood alcohol content was inadmissible. This issue is without merit.
2. WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT ALLOWED THE STATE TO ELICIT TESTIMONY FROM THE DEFENDANT ABOUT AN "OTHER CRIME" THE DEFENDANT COMMITTED.
. Savannah next contends that the trial court erred when it allowed the State to elicit testimony from Savannah concerning an alleged "other crime." During the course of cross-examining Savannah, the State asked several questions concerning whether Savannah had a concealed carrier permit for the weapon he was carrying on the day of the shooting. Savannah objected to the line of questioning and the trial court overruled the objection but instructed the State to terminate that line of questioning.
. The admission of evidence is governed by the trial court and its decision will not be reversed unless an abuse of discretion occurred. Muscolino, 803 So. 2d at 1244 ( ). Savannah contends that the questions asked by the State represent evidence of an "other crime" committed by Savannah which is generally considered inadmissible character evidence pursuant to M.R.E. 404. The State argues that Savannah's direct testimony indicated that he contended that the shooting was an accident and, therefore, that the evidence of the "other crime" was admissible to prove an absence of accident pursuant to M.R.E. 404(b). The trial court found this contention to be meritorious. We cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting this evidence as Savannah's direct testimony clearly indicated that he was asserting that the shooting was an accident. This point of error is without merit.
. Savannah also contends that the trial court erred on this point as it failed to conduct an on- the-record weighing of probative value versus prejudicial effect. Savannah did not object at trial to the prejudicial effect of the evidence. Failure to make an objection as to the prejudicial effect of evidence at trial is a procedural bar to raising the issue on appeal. Fair v. State, 766 So. 2d 787, 792 ( ) (Miss. Ct. App. 2000). Savannah is procedurally barred from raising this issue on appeal for the first time.
3. WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT DENIED SAVANNAH'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICT OR, ALTERNATIVELY, NEW TRIAL.
. Savannah first contends in this point of error that the trial court erred when it denied his motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict challenge the legal sufficiency of the evidence. Brown v. State, 763 So. 2d 189, 192 ( ) (Miss. Ct. App. 2000). The evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the jury's verdict and the State is given the benefit of all favorable inferences reasonably drawn from the evidence. Id. This Court will reverse only where "reasonable and fair-minded jurors could only find the accused not guilty." Id. The evidence presented at trial showed that Savannah shot Gilmore while they were standing approximately eight feet apart. There was sufficient evidence to suppo
Page 1 2 3 4 Mississippi Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|