Opinion ID: 1328340
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: admission of irrelevant and unnecessary evidence

Text: The defendant's next assignment of error as set out in his brief is as follows: THE COURT ADMITTED SEVERAL UNNECESSARY AND IRRELEVANT ITEMS INTO EVIDENCE WHICH WERE NOT CONNECTED WITH THE MURDER CASE The Court admitted into evidence a paper bag containing a ponytail, an axe handle and a claw hammer, all of which had nothing to do with the murder of John Moran. These items had nothing to do with the case other than inferring the Defendant was a `bad' person. They were prejudicial and should not have been admitted. The defendant objected at trial to each of the items now complained of on the basis of relevancy. [10] The State urges that, since the defendant did not argue prejudice below, he may not raise the issue of prejudice now. Rule 401 of the West Virginia Rules of Evidence provides that relevant evidence refers to 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. We stated in McDougal v. McCammon, 193 W.Va. 229, 236, 455 S.E.2d 788, 795 (1995), that [u]nder Rule 401, evidence having any probative value whatsoever can satisfy the relevancy definition. The record indicates that the ponytail was found by investigators under a mattress in Ms. Agent's home. There was testimony that the defendant had worn a ponytail. Ms. Agent testified that the ponytail was the defendant's and that she cut it a few days before Mr. Moran was killed. The axe handle was found by investigators at Ms. Agent's home. Ms. Agent testified the axe handle was the instrument the defendant had initially indicated he would use to render the robbery victim unconscious during his planned escape. The claw hammer was found by authorities in Mr. Moran's car. Ms. Agent testified the claw hammer was used by the defendant to threaten her while they fled to Florida. We believe the evidence objected to was relevant in this case. Moreover, the probative value of this evidence outweighed any prejudice that may have been associated with the introduction of this evidence. See W.Va.R.Evid. 403.