Case Name: Paul WADE v. STATE of Mississippi
Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Mississippi
Decision Date: 1991-07-31
Citations: 583 So. 2d 965
Docket Number: No. 90-KA-0173
Parties: Paul WADE v. STATE of Mississippi.
Judges: Before DAN M. LEE, P.J., and PRATHER and McRAE, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 583
Pages: 965–970

Head Matter:
Paul WADE v. STATE of Mississippi.
No. 90-KA-0173.
Supreme Court of Mississippi.
July 31, 1991.
Thomas J. Lowe, Jr., M. Charles May, Jackson, for appellant.
Mike C. Moore, Atty. Gen., Pat S. Flynn, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.
Before DAN M. LEE, P.J., and PRATHER and McRAE, JJ.

Opinion:
DAN M. LEE, Presiding Justice,
for the Court:
On January 10, 1990, in the First Judicial District of Hinds County, Paul Wade was convicted of sexually battering a ten-year-old child, in violation of Miss.Code Ann. § 97-3-95 (Supp.1990). Mr. Wade was sentenced to fifteen years imprisonment, seven and one-half years suspended with supervised probation for five years upon release. Feeling aggrieved, he appeals, asserting the following as a singular assignment of error:
7. The trial court committed reversible error in admitting sexually explicit pictures owned by the defendant, which pictures were irrelevant and highly inflammatory
Finding the facts and issues in this case are very similar to those in Collins v. State, 513 So.2d 877 (Miss.1987), we reverse Mr. Wade's conviction, and remand for a new trial.
FACTS
The alleged victim, L.W., and her younger female cousin, L.N., testified that, in March of 1988, they were in a public park with L.W.'s younger brother, E.W. Mr. Wade asked L.W. to have sexual relations with him. L.W. did not respond to this suggestion. Mr. Wade then asked the children if they wanted to look at a "naked" or "nasty" book. They said "yes," and they looked at the book. L.N. then got into Mr. Wade's vehicle, and L.W. and her brother followed their cousin into the vehicle. Mr. Wade drove the children to a vacant lot, and, while still inside the vehicle, he engaged in anal intercourse with L.W. After the intercourse, he returned the children to the park.
At trial, the prosecutor showed L.W. a bag of pictures, and asked, "do you remember pictures in this bag?" L.W. responded, "[h]e didn't show them in the bag. He showed them in a book." This bag of pictures is the questionable evidence at issue. The pictures show nude people displaying themselves in graphic poses, and explicitly engaging in both heterosexual and homosexual acts.
A police officer testified that he arrested Mr. Wade, based upon information given to him by L.W. and L.N. After being arrested, Mr. Wade consented to a search of his vehicle, which yielded the bag of pictures. The prosecution moved to admit the bag into evidence. Defense counsel objected, on the grounds that they were irrelevant and prejudicial, but the objection was overruled, and the bag of pictures was admitted into evidence.
Mr. Wade testified that he did not show the children any pictures, although the children did find and look at a book that was on one of the seats in his vehicle. The children did not see the bag of pictures, because it was underneath one of the vehicle's seats. During a custodial interview, Mr. Wade also said he did not show the children any pictures, but he did admit to having a magazine in his vehicle. At all times, Mr.'Wade denied having any sexual contact with L.W.
DISCUSSION
Neither of the child witnesses contended they saw the bag of pictures. Therefore, the issue is whether explicit pictures, which were not seen during a sexual battery, may be properly introduced into evidence. Further, if it was error for the trial court to admit these pictures, we must decide whether the error was so prejudicial as to require reversal.
This exact issue was previously addressed by this Court in Collins v. State, 513 So.2d 877 (Miss.1987). In that case, while denying a charge of sexual battery, the defendant admitted that he showed pictures in a single magazine to two children. After the defendant was arrested, he consented to a search of his home, where six magazines containing photographs of nude people were found. Although the defendant identified the specific magazine he showed to the children, during the trial all six of the magazines were introduced into evidence. The issue on appeal was whether the magazines were either relevant, or part of the res gestae of the crime. We held that it was proper to admit into evidence the specific materials, shown during a sexual battery; however, it was reversible error to admit materials that were not shown, because these materials were neither relevant, nor probative of circumstances surrounding the offense. Rather, their sole function was to inflame the jury. Collins at 879.
Evidence that is either relevant or shows the res gestae of a crime is admissible. Relevant evidence is evidence that tends to show whether a fact of consequence to an action either occurred or did not occur. Collins at 878, citing Mississippi State Highway Commission v. Dixie Contractors, Inc., 375 So.2d 1202, 1205 (Miss.1979). See also, M.R.E. 401. Evidence is admissible as showing the res ges-tae of a crime, if the evidence tends to show part of the entire transaction constituting the crime. Collins at 879, citing Woods v. State, 393 So.2d 1319, 1324 (Miss.1981).
The decision of whether to admit evidence is left to a trial court's broad discretion. Brown v. State, 534 So.2d 1019, 1024-25 (Miss.1988); Knox v. State, 502 So.2d 672, 674 (Miss.1987). While these decisions are not lightly overturned, when the improper introduction of evidence prejudices a defendant, it constitutes reversible error. Collins at 879, citing Lambert v. State, 462 So.2d 308, 312 (Miss.1984); McNeil v. State, 308 So.2d 236, 241 (Miss.1975).
In this case, the trial court erred in allowing the bag of pictures to be introduced into evidence. Because the children did not see the bag, it was relevant neither to the sexual battery nor to res gestae of the offense. A fact of consequence to the action, as well as part of the res gestae of the crime, was whether the defendant showed the children pictures of nude people. The testimony on this point conflicted, with the children testifying that the defendant showed pictures in a book to them, and the defendant testifying that the children found the book by themselves. However, neither of the two child witnesses testified that they saw, or were shown, the bag of pictures. Thus, the bag had no probative value as to whether the children were shown pictures in a book, or whether they discovered the book by themselves. Therefore, it was error to allow the bag of pictures into evidence.
Having established the bag of pictures was improperly admitted, the question becomes whether the bag was so prejudicial to the defendant as to constitute reversible error. The issue here is identical to that in Collins, which held "[t]he very nature of the magazines is highly inflammatory. . The sole function of the five magazines was to inflame the Yalobusha County jurors." Collins at 879. As in Collins, the jurors in this ease may have been offended not only by the explicit nudity shown in the pictures, but also by the graphic depictions of heterosexual and homosexual acts. The jurors may have concluded that because the defendant collected these pictures, he did, in fact, sexually batter L.W. Under these- facts, the defendant was prejudiced by the admission of the bag of pictures to such extent that their admission constituted reversible error.
Therefore, under both the facts of this case, and the holding of Collins, we re verse the conviction and remand for a new trial not inconsistent with this opinion.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
PRATHER, ROBERTSON, SULLIVAN and McRAE, JJ., concur.
HAWKINS, P.J., dissents by separate written opinion, joined by ROY NOBLE LEE, C.J., and PITTMAN and BANKS, JJ.