Opinion ID: 1947983
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: Potential for Prejudice

Text: Defendant also alleges that the videotape resulted in undue prejudice to the defendant. Relevant evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the risk of undue prejudice. Evid.R. 403. The admissibility of potentially prejudicial evidence falls largely within the discretion of the trial court, see State v. McDougald, 120 N.J. 523, 577-78, 577 A. 2d 419, 446-47 (1990), and that discretion is broad. State v. Sands, 76 N.J. 127, 141, 386 A. 2d 378, 385 (1978). A trial court's mistaken exercise of that discretion exists when the danger of undue prejudice outweighs the probative value of the evidence in that it would divert jurors from a reasonable and fair evaluation of the basic issue of guilt or innocence. State v. Moore, 122 N.J. 420, 467, 585 A. 2d 864, 888 (1991) (citing State v. Sanchez, 224 N.J. Super. 231, 249-50, 540 A. 2d 201, 210-11 (App.Div.), certif. denied, 111 N.J. 653, 546 A. 2d 561 (1988)). On that point, evidence of an inflammatory nature must be excluded under Evidence Rule 403 if probative, non-inflammatory evidence on the same point is available. State v. Davis, 116 N.J. 341, 366, 561 A. 2d 1082, 1094-95 (1989); State v. Lockett, 249 N.J. Super. 428, 433, 592 A. 2d 617, 619-20 (App.Div.), certif. denied, 127 N.J. 553, 606 A. 2d 366 (1991). Because of the indelible impressions that are likely to result from videotaped and other filmed evidence, such evidence must be subject to careful scrutiny. II McCormick on Evidence, supra, § 214, at 19 (discussing difficulty of limiting impressions resulting from extreme vividness and verisimilitude of pictorial reenactments); 3 Wigmore on Evidence § 798a, at 260 (Chadbourn rev., 1970) (observing that while filmed reenactment can be made to favor proponent's view, any motion picture is apt to cause forgetfulness of this and to impress the jury with the convincing impartiality of Nature herself). Nonetheless, the videotape in this case presents no such danger. The introduction of the videotape was not unduly prejudicial to defendant so as to divert the jurors from a reasonable and fair evaluation of the issue of guilt or innocence. First, the videotape did not address the crux of the dispute at trial: whether defendant had fired behind himself in a panic as he turned to flee, or had coolly stepped up to Szoke and fired the gun inches from Szoke's head. As previously stated, no one disputed the location of the witnesses. Indeed, ample and sufficient evidence verified the conditions appearing on the videotape.