Opinion ID: 1058311
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 43

Heading: Exclusion of TBI Memorandum

Text: During the cross-examination of TBI agent Samera Zavero, appellant attempted to introduce into evidence a TBI memorandum, which stated that a person named James Jones could not be excluded as a possible donor of the DNA found on appellant's right shoe. The trial court excluded the memorandum as irrelevant because there was no evidence that James Jones had anything to do with the case. Appellant argued that the memorandum was relevant because the State mentioned James Jones in opening statement. During its opening statement, the State told the jury that the case had been a hard case for law enforcement and the proof might show that appellant was not the first suspect in this case. Three men, Jones, Shelly, and Black, all of whom had a crack problem and were partying, taking guns, and selling them for crack, may have been the first suspects. Later in the opening, the State discussed the expected DNA evidence found on appellant's shoes and commented that's why [the DNA evidence of] Jones and Shelly and Black were given up. The trial court found that the mention of James Jones during opening statement was insufficient to establish the relevance of the document without any other evidence that James Jones had an involvement in the case. Appellant contends that, because the State injected the name of James Jones into the issue of the identity of the perpetrator of the crimes, the memorandum is relevant. Evidence is relevant if it has 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. Tenn. R. Evid. 401. Relevant evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury. Tenn. R. Evid. 403. However, [o]f critical importance here is the nature of opening statements. They are intended merely to inform the trial judge and jury, in a general way, of the nature of the case and to outline, generally, the facts each party intends to prove. Such statements do not amount to stipulations and certainly are not a substitute for the pleadings or for the evidence. Harris v. Baptist Mem'l Hosp., 574 S.W.2d 730, 732 (Tenn.1978). After a review of the evidence, we conclude that the trial court did not err in excluding the TBI memorandum. James Jones was never shown to have any involvement with the case. As such, any reference to him in a TBI memorandum is irrelevant to the determination of the facts at issue. Accordingly, this issue is without merit.