Opinion ID: 2543605
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Deollal Sookdeo's Testimony

Text: Abdool next argues that the trial court erred by allowing Amelia's father to testify during the guilt phase because his testimony was irrelevant, was presented only to garner sympathy from the jury, and unfairly prejudiced him. We review this claim for an abuse of discretion. Twilegar v. State, 42 So.3d 177 (Fla.2010) (citing Alston v. State, 723 So.2d 148, 156 (Fla.1998)). The trial court is obligated to exclude evidence in which unfair prejudice outweighs the probative value in order to avoid the danger that a jury will convict a defendant based upon reasons other than evidence establishing his guilt. McDuffie v. State, 970 So.2d 312, 327 (Fla.2007). `Unfair prejudice' has been described as `an undue tendency to suggest decision on an improper basis, commonly, though not necessarily, an emotional one.' Id. (quoting Brown v. State, 719 So.2d 882, 885 (Fla.1998)). In performing the balancing test to determine if the unfair prejudice outweighs the probative value of the evidence, the trial court should consider the need for the evidence, the tendency of the evidence to suggest an emotional basis for the verdict, the chain of inference from the evidence necessary to establish the material fact, and the effectiveness of a limiting instruction. Id. (citing Taylor v. State, 855 So.2d 1, 22 (Fla.2003)). However, [a]ll relevant evidence is admissible, except as provided by law. § 90.402, Fla. Stat. (2009). Section 90.401, Florida Statutes, defines relevant evidence as evidence tending to prove or disprove a material fact. Because we find Mr. Sookdeo's testimony was at least minimally relevant, we hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing it. In sum, Mr. Sookdeo testified that he was not living with Amelia and her mother at the time of her murder but that he was very close to his daughter. He stated that he was aware that Amelia's mother did not allow her to date, and that he did not know that she had a boyfriend and did not know about Abdool. He then testified that when he learned Amelia was missing, he went over to her home and went driving around looking for her, and he went through her phone book and contacted all of her close friends. Mr. Sookdeo further testified that he continued to look for Amelia for six days until the police contacted him and let him know that they had located Amelia's body. He also stated that sometime later, he provided the police with a swab stick. Mr. Sookdeo's testimony that Amelia was not allowed to date was relevant to the fact that Amelia snuck out of her bedroom window in order to meet Abdool. In addition, Mr. Sookdeo's testimony that he provided police with a swab stick was relevant to other testimony presented during the guilt phase that Amelia was ultimately identified through DNA samples provided by her family. Further, Mr. Sookdeo's testimony that he searched for Amelia for six days was helpful in providing the jury with a context of the timeline involved in the investigation surrounding Amelia's disappearance. In any event, the probative value of Mr. Sookdeo's testimony was not outweighed by any prejudice to Abdool. Mr. Sookdeo's testimony covers a mere three pages of transcript, and nothing in his words implies that he was grief-stricken, overly emotional, or angry. Therefore, nothing in Mr. Sookdeo's testimony indicates that it inflamed or was intended to inflame the jury or appeal improperly to the jury's emotions. Accordingly, Mr. Sookdeo's testimony was relevant, and its probative value outweighed any prejudice to Abdool. Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing it.