Opinion ID: 1229173
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Exclusion of Substantive and Impeachment Evidence

Text: The defendant's second issue can be broken down into three separate matters: (1) Did the trial court err in excluding the testimony of Attorney J. Michael Anderson concerning Steven Hutsenpiller's inducement for testifying on behalf of the State? (2) Did the trial court err in excluding the video statement of Lana Poole made soon after Burge's death? and (3) Was the exclusion of an alleged audiotape of a telephone conversation between the defendant's mother and Lana Poole reversible error? Because the defendant's second assignment of error concerns several instances of alleged error in the exclusion of evidence, this Court will review the trial court's rulings on these matters for an abuse of discretion. A trial court's evidentiary rulings, as well as its application of the Rules of Evidence, are reviewed for an abuse of discretion. State v. Blake, 197 W.Va. 700, 705, 478 S.E.2d 550, 555 (1996) (citation omitted). Further, Even when a trial court has abused its discretion by admitting or excluding evidence, the conviction must be affirmed unless a defendant can meet his or her burden of demonstrating that substantial rights were affected by the error. In other words, a conviction should not be reversed if we conclude the error was harmless or unimportant in relation to everything else the jury considered on the issue in question. Instead, this Court will only overturn a conviction on evidentiary grounds if the error had a substantial influence over the jury. Id. (citations omitted). A.