Opinion ID: 2132237
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Testimony About Other Guns

Text: Beadin argues that the trial court should not have permitted the prosecutor to question him about the presence of other guns in his home. The evidence, he claims, was not relevant to whether Beadin discharged the weapon with intent to kill. Evidence is relevant if it has logical tendency to prove or disprove a material fact. McBride v. State (1987), Ind., 515 N.E.2d 865. The decision to admit evidence is within the discretion of the trial court. Fox v. State (1987), Ind., 506 N.E.2d 1090. This Court will reverse such a decision only when the lower court has abused its discretion. During cross-examination of Beadin, the prosecutor asked, Did you have any other guns in the home on that evening? Beadin's counsel objected, and the trial court sustained the objection. The prosecutor then established Beadin's familiarity with guns through a series of questions. He ended this line of questioning by asking, Did you fire any other double barrel shotgun besides the one you sawed off and that you used? Beadin answered in the negative. The prosecutor then sought to go back to the other guns because there was another double barrel shotgun in the house. The trial court ruled, Under the circumstances he has indicated his familiarity with firearms which brings us to the ultimate question if this was an accidental or intentional shooting, and under those circumstances I believe that it can be pursued on cross-examination. Beadin's counsel did not object to this ruling, but even if he had objected the trial court was within its authority to allow the questions. The testimony tended to rebut Beadin's argument that the shooting was an accident. As such, the trial court was within its discretion in ruling on this evidentiary matter.