 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Adams12/20/1999
Defendant's motion to exclude this evidence, the trial court found that both the letter and picture were "highly probative of the defendant's purpose" and that their probative value was not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. We agree with the trial court that the letter was relevant and admissible, but conclude that the picture was erroneously admitted because it was of minimal relevance to the issues before the court and its probative value, if any, was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. However, we find that this error was harmless.
Tennessee Rule of Evidence 401 defines "relevant evidence" as "evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence." Evidence which is not relevant is inadmissible. Tenn. R. Evid. 402. "Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice . . . ." Tenn. R. Evid. 403. The trial court has the discretion to admit or exclude evidence under this balancing test, and its determination will not be overturned absent an abuse of that discretion. See State v. Cribbs, 967 S.W.2d 773, 793 (Tenn. 1998).
The letter written by the Defendant to Linda Lewis is relevant because in that letter the Defendant basically admits to committing the crimes charged. He also makes statements about being intoxicated and on drugs when he committed the crimes, which is relevant to his culpable mental state. Though the letter does contain a rather inflammatory and prejudicial statement, we do not believe that the statement is so prejudicial that it outweighs the probative value of the letter. Therefore, the trial judge did not abuse her discretion in admitting the letter.
The picture, on the other hand, presents a different situation. The picture was drawn after the Defendant was in jail and was sent to Ms. Lewis with the letter forty-six days after the offense. While the picture may depict what the Defendant would like to do to Ms. Lewis, we do not believe a picture drawn over a month after the attack on Ms. Lewis is probative of the Defendant's premeditation and intent on the date of the offense. We believe this picture is more in the nature of propensity evidence of the Defendant's character, which is inadmissible to prove that he acted in conformity with his character. See Tenn. R. Evid. 404(a), (b); State v. Tizard, 897 S.W.2d 732, 743-45 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994). Moreover, even if the picture was relevant, its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. The picture is gruesome and would likely inflame a jury against the Defendant.
Though we find that the picture was erroneously admitted into evidence, we also find that its admission was harmless. The picture was admitted to show the Defendant's premeditation and his intent to kill Linda Lewis, which would have been proof that the Defendant was guilty of attempted first degree murder. The jury, however, acquitted the Defendant of attempted first degree murder and instead found him guilty of attempted second degree murder, which indicates that the jury discounted the evidence of premeditation and intent. In order to have found the Defendant guilty of attempted second degree murder, the jury must have found only that the Defendant "knowingly" attempted to kill Linda Lewis. See Tenn. Code Ann. ยงยง 39-12-101, 39-13-210. As already determined, the evidence presented at trial was more than sufficient to support the Defendant's conviction for attempted second degree murder and his other convictions. We do not believe that this picture
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Tennessee Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|