Opinion ID: 1924358
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: whether the trial court erred in allowing into evidence the.380 pistol, magazine and ammunition found pursuant to a search of montana's bedroom.

Text: ¶ 45. The evidence is undisputed that the weapon that Montana fired on the night in question was a 9mm pistol and that the pistol in custody was the one he fired. The State's firearms expert, Starks Hathcock, testified that 9mm shell casings were recovered from the scene, and no.380 shell casings were found. He further testified that, while a .380 round could be fired from a 9mm pistol, a 9mm round could not be fired through a .380 pistol. It is undisputed that the bullet removed from Rashad Holloway was a 9mm projectile. Therefore, the 9mm projectile removed from Holloway could not have been fired from the .380 firearm recovered from Montana's bedroom. ¶ 46. The prosecution argued for the admission of a .380 pistol and magazine containing .380 bullets found in Montana's bedroom based on the following: The defense has introduced a .30 caliber weapon, and is going to, as we all are aware, argue that it could have been fired from another, i.e., Chris Hairston's gun. If the jury is permitted, and I think they are, to consider whether or not that's a possibility, they should equally be able to consider whether or not it came from the defendant's .380 firearm. The court admitted the .380 pistol and magazine, but instructed the prosecution not to mention it unless Montana attempted to argue that Holloway was shot with a.380 caliber weapon. ¶ 47. This discussion occurred outside the presence of the jury. The possibility of another .380 being used to shoot Holloway was never argued by Montana, and the exhibit was never mentioned again. Montana has failed to show that he was prejudiced by the trial court's admission of the evidence. Before error can be predicated on an adverse evidentiary ruling, the admission or exclusion of evidence must result in prejudice or harm. Austin v. State, 784 So.2d 186, 194 (Miss.2001) (citing Parker v. State, 606 So.2d 1132, 1137-38 (Miss. 1992)); Jackson v. State, 594 So.2d 20, 25 (Miss.1992). Any error in the admission of the exhibit was harmless. This assignment of error is without merit.