Opinion ID: 1954826
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: The Victim's Blood Alcohol Content

Text: ¶ 15. Next, Farmer attacks various evidentiary rulings as proof of bias. It is important to note that judicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis for a bias or partiality motion. Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555, 114 S.Ct. 1147, 1157, 127 L.Ed.2d 474 (1994). A trial judge enjoys a great deal of discretion as to the relevancy and admissibility of evidence. Unless the judge abuses this discretion so as to be prejudicial to the accused, the Court will not reverse this ruling. Gilley v. State, 748 So.2d 123, 126 (Miss.1999). ¶ 16. Farmer first claims that Judge Evans refused to allow introduction of evidence of the victim's blood alcohol content out of sympathy for the victim. At trial, Farmer's attorney proposed to question the emergency room physician about the victim's blood alcohol content. Judge Evans expressed his doubts as to the relevancy of that information, explaining, [i]f you'll tell me and it is relevant, I'll be delighted; but what earthly relevance could his condition of sobriety have with this case? Counsel for Farmer maintained that the evidence would support a self defense claim, though he admitted [i]t's hard to do at this point because we haven't really put on a self defense claim... I think testimony can also show that [the victim] has a tendency toward violence when he gets drunk.... Anyone who saw him that night could testify that he was drunk and in a rage when he hit this boy in the head with a bottle. After learning that the alleged attack by the victim occurred thirty minutes before the assault at issue in the present case, Judge Evans agreed to allow such questioning, if Farmer could demonstrate relevance. At the time defense counsel proposed to question the emergency room physician, he had not yet established the relevancy of the victim's alleged intoxication on the night of the assault. Judge Evans had agreed to allow Farmer to recall the witness if and when he demonstrated relevancy. However, Farmer did not make a subsequent attempt to recall nor question the witness. Moreover, the jury did in fact hear testimony that the victim had attacked an individual with a beer bottle earlier in the evening. There was no prejudice, and we, therefore, determine this assignment of error to be without merit.