Opinion ID: 146930
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Admission of Iesha Johnson’s testimony

Text: In their first issue, Simpson and Gilliam contend that the district court erred in allowing the grand jury testimony of Iesha Johnson, in the form of an audio tape and a transcript, to be introduced as trial exhibits. Though Simpson and Gilliam concede that the evidence was admissible under Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(1)(A) (prior inconsistent statement), they nevertheless contend that allowing the statement to be included in various forms as exhibits at trial was unfairly prejudicial, in violation of Fed. R. Evid. 403. We review a district court’s evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion. United States v. Kelly, 510 F.3d 433, 436 (4th Cir. 2007). Under Rule 403, relevant evidence “may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.” However, the record reflects that the district court properly considered the probative versus prejudicial value of the evidence when allowing it to be submitted to the jury as an exhibit. Accordingly, we find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing admission of Johnson’s grand jury testimony.