Opinion ID: 867372
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Lavora Humphreys' testimony

Text: ¶ 57 Pandeli also claims that the trial court abused its discretion when it allowed Lavora Humphreys, Teresa Humphreys' sister, to testify because her testimony was cumulative, irrelevant, and improper victim impact testimony. Lavora Humphreys testified about the clothing Teresa was wearing the last time Lavora saw her, that Teresa never carried a knife, that she did not know how to drive, and that she had no major injuries before she was killed. Lavora also described the position of Teresa's body at the crime scene and stated that we didn't want Teresa to leave and she left, and a couple occurrences happened before she was walking out the door. ¶ 58 With the exception of the statement that she didn't want [Teresa] to leave, none of Lavora's testimony was victim impact testimony. The single improper statement was interrupted by defense counsel's objection, and Lavora was not allowed to describe the occurrences that she mentioned. Lavora's testimony was also not cumulative because the information she provided was not previously given by Detectives Gregory or Rea or by Dr. Keen. Her testimony was, however, mostly irrelevant and did not provide any important facts of the crime. ¶ 59 Although minimally probative, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting Lavora's testimony because it was also minimally prejudicial. See Cañez, 202 Ariz. at 154, ¶ 67, 42 P.3d at 585 (finding no abuse of discretion where evidence was both minimally probative and minimally prejudicial). We conclude that there was no error with regard to Lavora Humphreys' testimony.