Opinion ID: 1060826
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 22

Heading: introduction of appellant's beeper and money

Text: Next, the appellant contends that the trial court erroneously permitted the introduction into evidence of his beeper and $602.00 in cash, which were found on his person at the time of his arrest. Specifically, he argues that the admission of these items was irrelevant and unduly prejudicial, because it suggested to the jury that the appellant was involved in illegal drug activity. Tenn.R.Evid. 403; see also State v. Banks, 564 S.W.2d 947 (Tenn.1978). The State initially sought to introduce the contested evidence simply to show what was found on [the appellant] and discount any robbery motive. The appellant made a contemporaneous objection, which was overruled, claiming that the evidence was irrelevant to the issue of premeditation. Under Rule 402, all relevant evidence is admissible except as provided ... Evidence which is not relevant is not admissible. Rule 401 defines relevant evidence as evidence having 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. The State also argues on appeal that the appellant's testimony adequately justified his possession of the beeper and currency. Both items in question were introduced by the State during its case-in-chief. The appellant subsequently testified that he went to the victim's apartment the night before the murder in response to a beep he received from the victim. Regarding the $602.00 in cash, the appellant testified that he had been saving money he had earned from several odd jobs. We agree that the introduction of the beeper and $602.00 in cash was not relevant to the existence of any issue that the jury was required to decide and, thus, was improperly admitted. We conclude, however, that the appellant was not unfairly prejudiced by their admission. Nothing in the record before us suggests that the appellant was involved in illegal drug activity. The appellant's testimony sufficiently explained his possession of the contested evidence. Accordingly, we find that any error in admitting the beeper and currency was harmless. Tenn. R.App. P. 36(b); Tenn. R.Crim. P. 52(a).