Opinion ID: 2234872
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Toy Car

Text: Ture moved to suppress the toy car and evidence related to it on the basis that it was irrelevant and prejudicial. [3] Following a pretrial hearing held in December 1999 on this issue, the court denied Ture's motion, finding the toy car to be clearly relevant to the possibility that [Ture] was at the murder site. The court also found that the jury could properly weigh the evidence without any undue prejudice to Ture. Relevant evidence is 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. Minn. R. Evid. 401. Rule 401 adopts a minimal relevancy approach. State v. Provost, 490 N.W.2d 93, 99 (Minn.1992). Rulings on the relevancy of evidence are generally left to the sound discretion of the trial court. State v. Horning, 535 N.W.2d 296, 298 (Minn.1995). Ture argues that the toy car was irrelevant because no logical basis supports the inference that it was William's car. We disagree. The seized toy car supports an inference that Ture was present at the Ruling house. This is particularly true, as the district court noted, in light of Ture's alleged statements to Randall Ferguson concerning the toy car. Moreover, given Ture's evasive responses during the December 20, 1978, interview concerning the toy car's origin and their inconsistency with Ture's testimony at the suppression hearing, the toy car is directly relevant to the question of Ture's guilt. This satisfies Rule 401's minimal relevancy approach. Provost, 490 N.W.2d at 99. Ture next claims that, under Minn. R. Evid. 403, the prejudicial effect of admitting the toy car substantially outweighed its probative value. He argues that the toy must have had a powerful effect on the jury because the incredibly sad events that befell William Huling must have made them want to believe that it was William's. This argument lacks merit. While it suggests that William Huling's experience had a prejudicial effect on the jury, it says little if anything about the toy car's prejudicial effect. Ture has offered no other basis on which we can conclude that the prejudicial effect of admitting evidence related to the toy car substantially outweighed its probative value. We therefore conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it admitted evidence related to the toy car at trial.