Opinion ID: 1784340
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Wash Cloth

Text: Holland objected to the introduction of a white wash cloth not only because of its appearance, but because of the ... odor coming from the article. Holland explains that the odor is so strong and pungent that it would [`adversely'] effect [ sic ] the jury; that is, it's probative value outweighs the prejudicial effect. The State countered by simply stating that: [It's an item] found in the grave site with the victim [and is p]robative for many reasons, including just the fact that it is another item found in her grave site. The trial judge admitted the cloth after concurring in the State's rationale. The law relevant to admissibility of the video is also relevant to the disposition of whether the wash cloth should have been admitted. In other words, this Court must determine whether the trial judge abused his discretion in deciding that the probative value, if any, of the smelly, stained cloth outweighed its tendency, if any, to inflame and prejudice the jury. The State contends that it was probative for many reasons; the State declares that it was found at the grave site. The cloth would have been relevant had it been identified as belonging to Holland or as deriving from Holland's home. Absent a sufficient connection between the cloth and Holland and/or the crime, the judge should have excluded it. To conclude otherwise would mean admitting anything found at the scene of a crime  notwithstanding its irrelevance. All this aside, this Court deems the error harmless in view of the overwhelming evidence presented in this case. Moreover, any prejudicial effect of admitting the cloth dims in view of the numerous items found at the grave site which were admitted without challenge. These items include a sample of soil that covered the victim in the grave site, a pair of white corduroy shorts, a pair of panties, a black towel, a bag of concrete, a woman's black purse, a pair of white rubber gloves, a brown towel, a lace bra, white shoes, notes from a note-pad, and make-up. The State also introduced a bloody pillow case, which police investigators found at the grave site; Holland challenged the admissibility of this item on the ground that it contained an excessive amount of blood stain. [13] The trial judge overruled the objection, and Holland did not challenge this decision on appeal. In sum, this Court concludes that admitting the cloth constituted an erroneous, albeit harmless, decision.