Opinion ID: 535165
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Odom's Testimony

Text: 20 Defendant argues that the testimony of Harvey Odom regarding his attempted crack purchase at 284 Kelton was irrelevant and therefore was admitted contrary to Fed.R.Evid. 402, which states that [a]ll relevant evidence is admissible, and/or Fed.R.Evid. 403, which states that relevant evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. We reject this argument because Odom's testimony was probative of the fact that 284 Kelton was a known crack house and that the usual method for a prospective purchaser to make a buy was through the hole in the back of the house. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the danger of unfair prejudice in admitting Odom's testimony did not substantially outweigh its probative value. Fed.R.Evid. 403.