Opinion ID: 1735108
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Blood

Text: ¶ 36. Reynolds argues on appeal that the defense was unduly prejudiced by the [sic] Officer Butler's testimony that the spots were `blood like'. The defense argues that the trial court erred in allowing the testimony that the substance appeared to be blood over its objection. The State contends that the issue is waived as the objection actually made at trial was never any objection as to [the] authenticity of the blood during trial or in Reynolds['s] motion for a J.N.O.V. The record reflects that the objection was to the use of the word blood, not to appeared to be blood. ¶ 37. The State cites Holland v. State, 587 So.2d 848, 868 (Miss.1991), in support of its position. In Holland, this Court found that failure to raise an issue at the trial court on the same grounds as argued on appeal waives the issue. The Court stated: Holland is procedurally barred from raising these issues because he either cites support for his contention which is different from the support he cited at the trial level or he failed to raise the issue at trial. A trial judge cannot be put in error on a matter which was not presented to him for decision. Pruett v. Thigpen, 665 F.Supp. 1254, 1262 (N.D.Miss.1986); See Read v. State, 430 So.2d 832, 838 (Miss.1983) . . . Holland v. State, 587 So.2d at 868 n. 18. ¶ 38. The record reflects that the objections made by the defense was to the word blood being used by Officer Butler in her testimony. Officer Butler was testifying as to what she had marked on a diagram that had been marked and introduced into evidence. The following exchange transpired during Officer Butler's testimony: A: As you can see, this is the same diagram that you looked at before, but the items on it are indicated by letters instead of numbers. On Exhibit A of the evidence we had listed the broom, which is leaning up against the sheet. Q: Is there anything conspicuous about that broom? A: Yes, sir. Midway up the handle there was what appeared to be a bloody smear on the broom handle. Defense: Objection on the word blood, Your Honor. A: Appeared to be. State: I don't think she's testifying that it was blood. She just said it appeared to be or it appeared to be bloodlike [sic]. Court: Overruled. She said appeared to be. A: Exhibit B in evidence was listed as the sheet with blood on it which would have been this curtain that was hanging and used as a door to the closet. It also had  Defense: Objection, again, Your Honor. That time she said, she didn't say appeared. She said blood. A: I'm sorry. Court: Sustained as to blood. A: Exhibit B is listed as the sheet covering the door which had what appeared to be a blood stain on it . . . (emphasis added). After the exchange above, the defense did not make any further objections at trial as to Officer Butler's testimony on the grounds of use of the word blood or appeared to be blood. This assignment of error is without merit. ¶ 39. While this assignment of error is procedurally barred as stated above for failure to raise at trial, the defense's alternate contention on appeal is that no credible evidence existed to support that the substance could have been blood. The trial court sustained the objection as to the use of the word blood. Officer Butler testified that the substance appeared to be blood. The evidence reflects that Holliday's body was found on the floor of his apartment. He had been shot 3 times. The evidence showed that Holliday died as a result of the gunshot wound to his chest. The gunshots were made at close range. Holliday's chest had the impression the gun barrel from being shot at close range. Therefore, it is not unreasonable for Officer Butler to find that the substance appeared to be blood. This argument is without merit.