Opinion ID: 52899
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Exclusion of Searcy’s Testimony

Text: 2 Moore first contends the district court erred in excluding witness testimony regarding the gun. At trial, Moore attempted to present testimony from Tamara Searcy, Kinchen’s ex-girlfriend. According to the proffer, Searcy would have testified that Kinchen had showed her a handgun in the glove compartment of the Intrepid 19 days earlier. Searcy also would have testified the guns looked similar, but she could not say the gun found with Moore was the same as the one possessed by Kinchen. The district court excluded this testimony as irrelevant. In general, all relevant evidence is admissible, and irrelevant evidence is inadmissible. Fed. R. Evid. 402. “The trial court is vested with broad discretion in ruling upon the relevancy and admissibility of evidence.” United States v. Anderson, 872 F.2d 1508, 1515 (11th Cir. 1989). “‘Relevant evidence’ means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.” Fed. R. Evid. 401. The district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding Searcy’s testimony. See United States v. Alaboud, 347 F.3d 1293, 1298 (11th Cir. 2003) (stating evidentiary decisions are reviewed for abuse of discretion). The record shows that, at best, Searcy would have testified she saw a gun in the glove compartment of the Intrepid 19 days before Moore was caught with a gun in the 3 back seat. The record further shows she could not identify the gun or say whether it was the same gun on both occasions. Accordingly, the only thing Searcy’s testimony would prove is that Kinchen had a gun in the car more than two weeks before Moore was caught with a gun in the car. The fact Kinchen had a gun in the glove compartment on July 4, 2005, does not make it more or less likely that Moore had a similar gun in the back seat on July 23, 2005. Moreover, because Searcy could do no more than testify the gun in the glove compartment was “similar,” she could not establish possession with her testimony. Accordingly, the testimony was not relevant. See Fed. R. Evid. 401.