Opinion ID: 1841427
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The introduction of the videotapes into evidence

Text: ¶ 23. Williams argues that the trial court erred in allowing the videotapes from the surveillance camera in the woods to be shown to the jury. These videotapes each were admitted into evidence during the testimony of Agent Umfress. After the admission of the first video into evidence, defense counsel made the following objection: Your honor, I do object to the showing [of] this video, because, first of all, they've already said to this jury that they will see this man on this tape. The trial court overruled the objection. ¶ 24. A trial judge has broad discretion as to the admissibility of evidence. Unless this discretion is so abused as to be prejudicial to the accused, this Court will not reverse the lower court's ruling. Coleman v. State, 697 So.2d 777, 784 (Miss.1997) (quoting Dye v. State, 498 So.2d 343, 344 (Miss.1986)). Defense counsel's objection was properly overruled. In laying the predicate for admitting the first video into evidence, Umfress described what was on the tape. In doing so, Umfress refers to the suspect on the video as a person, and never says the defendant or Williams. The objection by defense counsel to the first video was erroneous. ¶ 25. Before the admission of the second videotape into evidence, after the first already had been shown to the jury, the prosecutor made the following remark about the second video: Prosecutor: And has that been cued up? Umfress: Yes it has. Prosecutor: To the time that the defendant was out there at those plants? Umfress: Yes, sir. Defense counsel made no objection to the prosecutor's comment. When asked if she had objection to the second video being admitted into evidence, defense counsel stated, No, but I do object to again telling them that they will see this gentleman in the picture, whereas they must determine whose picture it is. The trial court responded: Jury, I trust that that is understood that you are viewing this video making your own factual determination that, in fact, this indeed is or is not the defendant. That's your determination to make. This Court presumes that a jury follows the direction of a trial court to disregard an improper comment. Flora v. State, 925 So.2d 797, 805 (Miss.2006). ¶ 26. The trial court did not directly sustain defense counsel's objection, nor did it admonish the prosecutor's comment. However, the trial court's instruction did inform the jury that they were to make their own factual determinations as to whether the suspect on the video was the defendant. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by allowing the videotapes to be played for the jury. ¶ 27. Williams also claims that the videos were not properly authenticated at trial. However, there was no objection at trial as to the authenticity of the videotapes. It is elementary that different grounds than the objections presented to the trial court cannot be presented for the first time on appeal. Thornhill v. State, 561 So.2d 1025, 1029 (Miss.1989). Williams's argument that the videotapes were not properly authenticated is procedurally barred.