Opinion ID: 874771
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Failure to Strike the Word Homicide from a Diagram Depicting the Scene Was an Abuse of Discretion

Text: Mr. Ellington argues that the district court abused its discretion in refusing to strike the word homicide from Exhibit 46, a large diagram that was used by Trooper Charles Robnett in laying out the scene of the accident, because the prejudicial effect of that word substantially outweighed any probative value it had. Defense counsel did not object to the exhibit's admission when it was initially offered. Mr. Ellington claims that homicide is synonymous with murder in the jurors' minds and therefore its probative value was very low, or nonexistent, and its prejudicial value was very high. The State argues that the district court properly ruled that because homicide was a legally accurate representation of the scene, the district court did not abuse its discretion in failing to strike the word. Normally, a party waives an objection to the admission of evidence by failing to object at the time of its admission. State v. Stevens, 126 Idaho 822, 824, 892 P.2d 889, 891 (1995). However, when a party brings a motion to strike a portion of that evidence before the evidence is published to the jury, before the close of arguments, and before the case has been submitted to the jury, the claim that the trial court erred by refusing to strike prejudicial evidence is properly preserved for appeal. State v. Thompson, 132 Idaho 628, 634, 977 P.2d 890, 896 (1999) (citing Hayward v. Yost, 72 Idaho 415, 424, 242 P.2d 971, 976 (1952) ([O]rdinarily an objection comes too late for the purpose of review on appeal, if made for the first time after the jury has retired or the cause has been submitted to them, or after the close of the arguments, or on motion for new trial or otherwise, after the verdict has been rendered.)). While the exhibit was admitted by the court and Trooper Robnett testified from it, there is no indication from the transcript that it was published to the jury before the defense brought its motion to strike. The motion was certainly well before any closing arguments or submission of the case to the jury. Therefore, Mr. Ellington properly preserved his claim on this issue for appeal. Black's Law Dictionary defines homicide as [t]he killing of one person by another. Black's Law Dictionary 802 (9th ed. 2009). It goes on to explain that [t]he legal term for killing a man, whether lawfully or unlawfully, is `homicide.' There is no crime of `homicide.' Unlawful homicide at common law comprises the two crimes of murder and manslaughter. Id. (quoting Glanville Williams, Textbook of Criminal Law 204 (1978)) (emphasis in original). It is true that the diagram contained no mention of murder or crime and that the trial judge had expressly forbidden the State from making references to the murder scene earlier in the trial. However, there was very little if any probative value to the word's continued inclusion in the exhibit, even if it was technically legally accurate. Also, even though homicide was an accurate representation of the diagram, it still contained the risk that an average juror would equate it with murder and thus carried a substantial amount of prejudice. See Barron's Law Dictionary 221 (3d ed. 1991) (stating that the term homicide is most commonly used to refer to an unlawful killing of a human being by any other human being.); The Merriam-Webster Online Thesaurus, http://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/homicide (last visited May 23, 2011) (defining homicide as the intentional and unlawful taking of another person's life and listing foul play, murder, and slaying as synonyms). This Court must evaluate whether the district judge perceived the issue as one of discretion, acted within the bounds of that discretion and consistent with established legal standards, and reached its decision through the exercise of reason. State v. Thorngren, 149 Idaho 729, 732, 240 P.3d 575, 578 (2010). Mr. Ellington argues that the district court never evaluated whether the inclusion of the word homicide in the diagram had any probative value, and therefore it abused its discretion. A review of the record indeed shows that the district court did not explicitly evaluate any probative value that the word's inclusion would have. [T]he trial judge must measure the probative worth of the proffered evidence in evaluating evidence under I.R.E. 403. Davidson v. Beco Corp., 114 Idaho 107, 110, 753 P.2d 1253, 1256 (1987). The court did reason that the term homicide was not prejudicial because it was accurate and did not include inflammatory and accusatory words such as murder scene or crime scene. However, because the district court failed to evaluate at all whether the word homicide has any probative value, and because there does not appear to be any probative value in its inclusion in the diagram, nor does the State provide this Court with any argument on the matter, we find that the district court abused its discretion.