Opinion ID: 1110731
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: denial of flora's request to question steven hayne about illicit drugs in the blood of the victim

Text: ¶ 77. The standard of review for the exclusion of evidence is abuse of discretion. Herring v. Poirrier, 797 So.2d 797, 804 (Miss.2000). The trial judge is empowered with the discretion to consider and to decide which evidence is admissible, and unless this judicial discretion is so abused as to be prejudicial to the accused, then, the ruling of the lower court must be affirmed. Clark v. State, 891 So.2d 136, 139 (Miss.2004). ¶ 78. During direct examination by the State, Dr. Steven Hayne testified that he drew blood and urine specimens from the body of the victim for toxicological testing by the Mississippi Crime Laboratory, and that the testing would show the presence or absence of ethyl alcohol or drugs of abuse in the bloodstream. Dr. Hayne also testified on direct examination that the crime laboratory results showed an absence of ethyl alcohol. Dr. Hayne further testified that the crime laboratory result of the ethyl alcohol testing was the only report he received. On cross-examination, Flora attempted to ask whether the urine of the victim showed the presence of drugs of abuse to which the trial court sustained the State's objection to that question. Had Flora not possessed the results of both the ethyl alcohol and drugs of abuse reports, his argument would certainly be stronger regarding a possible discovery violation. Flora was, however, in possession of both reports; counsel stated in a proffer outside the presence of a jury: I've got the testing documents and the results on them which would be negative for all drugs other than marijuana in the urine  of the blood of Mr. Spann [victim]. It is certainly not the State's duty to enter into evidence all documents in its possession, especially when the person testifying has no knowledge of the contents of an offered or proposed document. ¶ 79. Flora also argues that the State created a false impression of the evidence by only referring to the ethyl alcohol testing. This argument would have merit only if Dr. Hayne was aware of the drugs of abuse report of which he clearly denied having knowledge on several occasions. By asking Dr. Hayne about the only toxicological report of which he had knowledge, the State did not create a false impression of the evidence, and Flora cannot justifiably claim a due process violation. ¶ 80. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Flora the opportunity to ask Dr. Hayne about the results of the drugs of abuse report.