Opinion ID: 2277872
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Evidentiary Ruling Exercise of Discretion

Text: Hovington was charged and convicted with trafficking in cocaine under 16 Del.C. § 4753A(a)(2)(c) (1990 Supp.) [11] The Superior Court ruled that the slip of paper was admissible as relevant to Hovington's possession of the two bags of crack cocaine. The Superior Court's ruling was based upon the fact that the notation of 4¼ ounce on the slip of paper tended to correspond to the amount of crack cocaine found along the path which Hovington had fled. The determination of relevancy, is within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be reversed absent a clear abuse of discretion. D.R.E. 402. Baynard v. State, Del.Supr., 518 A.2d 682, 692 (1986); Lampkins v. State, Del.Supr., 465 A.2d 785, 790 (1983). [12] The determination of whether the probative value of a particular piece of evidence is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice is [also] a matter which falls particularly within the discretion of the trial judge, who has the first-hand opportunity to evaluate the relevant factors. Lynch v. State, Del. Supr., 588 A.2d 1138, 1141 (1991) (quoting Williams v. State, Del.Supr., 494 A.2d 1237, 1241 (1985)); D.R.E. 403. [13] The trial judge heard extensive arguments concerning the admissibility of the slip of paper and had a first hand opportunity to review that evidence. Lynch v. State, 588 A.2d at 1141. After careful consideration, the trial judge ruled: I understand that there is some prejudice involved in this. But I believe it is admissible. Almost all evidence that is admitted is prejudicial. The question is whether it is unduly prejudicial, and I think it is necessary in order to explain the notation four-and-a-quarter ounces. Hovington's contention that the trial judge abused his discretion in admitting the slip of paper into evidence is not supported by the record. Id.