X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:Appellant was convicted of aggravated assault of his wife, Carol, and sentenced to 70 years’ imprisonment. On appeal, he contended, inter alia, that the trial court erred in admitting a “day in the life” video depicting Carol’s activities in a rehabilitation facility. The court of appeals found that, while admission of the video during the guilt phase of the trial was error, it was harmless error. Appellant petitioned this court for discretionary review to determine whether the court of appeals erred in holding that the video tape of inadmissible victim-impact evidence viewed by the jury in the guilt phase was not harmful error.” The court refused to grant appellant’s petition for discretionary review. CONCURRENCE:Cochran, J. “After reviewing the record, I agree that the court of appeals correctly concluded that the erroneous admission of the video tape was harmless, but just barely. . . . “In finding the video inadmissible, the court of appeals stated that it was”highly prejudicial,’ and”contain[ed] no information that would have any tendency to make more or less probable the existence of any fact of consequence at the guilt stage of trial.’ Well, it did have some probative value; it certainly did show that Carol suffered serious bodily injury from which she will probably never fully recover. In spades. With a hammer. “But that fact had already been proven by copious other, less emotionally-fraught, evidence. “However, I must also agree that the court of appeals was not clearly mistaken in concluding that admission of the video was harmless error in this particular case. The State presented very strong evidence of appellant’s guilt. . . . “As the court of appeals stated, trial judges must exercise”heightened judicial supervision’ with regard to the admission of inherently prejudicial evidence at both the guilt and punishment stages of trial. The exercise of a trial judge’s sound discretion, especially when determining the admissibility of highly emotional evidence, is imperative in ensuring a fair trial that is calculated to lead to an accurate result.”

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.