Defendant stated he then left without knowing how badly Shulte was injured. On appeal the defendant claimed such evidence should not have been admitted on relevancy grounds. The conduct of defendant laughing about the incident is of more tenuous relevance but we cannot conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in determining that it had some relevance to defendant's state of mind at the time of the assault. We defer to the trial court's better position to weigh the probative value of the evidence against its prejudicial effect. The same reasoning applies to the case before us.
Plain error is one that is evident, obvious, and clear.
Here, considering Taylor and the evidence presented at trial, we find no plain error resulting in manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice in the trial court's admission of the complained of evidence. Defendant's point on appeal is denied. The judgment and sentence of the trial court is affirmed.