Opinion ID: 1765297
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: was brown denied his right to a fair and impartial trial due to the introduction of immaterial, irrelevant, and highly prejudicial evidence?

Text: Brown argues that the combination of several instances of the introduction of incompetent or inflammatory evidence resulted in the denial of his right to a fair trial. McDonald v. State, 285 So.2d 177 (Miss. 1973). These instances were: a) the introduction of 80 Playboy Magazines confiscated in a search of his home; b) testimony by both Detectives Sollie and Thomas, indicating that there may have been other victims; c) the testimony of the State's witness J.B. which implicated the appellant in a sale of marijuana; and d) testimony about a lesbian film and the introduction of a film confiscated in the search. On examining each issue raised by Brown, we find that he was not denied a fair trial. When the Playboy magazines were introduced into evidence, the defense objected on the grounds that Brown's ownership had not been proven and it is not unlawful to possess these magazines. No relevancy objection was made to the introduction of the magazines, therefore Brown is barred from raising the matter here, Lucas v. State, 381 So.2d 140 (Miss. 1980); Jones v. State, 367 So.2d 458 (Miss. 1979); Pyron v. State, 349 So.2d 1063 (Miss. 1977). This Court confines itself to objections made in the trial court. Tubbs v. State, 402 So.2d 830 (Miss. 1981). On cross-examination, Detectives Sollie and Thomas were asked what type of pictures they were searching for at the defendant's home. Each answered that they were looking for photos of other victims. In each case, defense counsel objected to the answer and moved for a mistrial. The objections were sustained and the jury was instructed to disregard the answers. Defendant's motion for a mistrial was overruled in each case. Any impropriety in these responses was elicited in response to Brown's own questions, therefore he cannot complain of the answers. Gholar v. State, 203 Miss. 371, 35 So.2d 706 (1948). A witness for the State testified that alcohol and marijuana were available at the Brown house and that Brown gave her money to purchase marijuana. Defense counsel's objection to any reference to the sale of marijuana as evidence of other crimes was sustained by the court, and the jury was admonished to disregard. Therefore, prejudicial error does not result from that testimony. Shelby v. State, 402 So.2d 338 (Miss. 1981); Herron v. State, 287 So.2d 759, 766 (Miss. 1974). It was not error to allow evidence of the consumption of marijuana since this evidence was relevant to the charge of contributing to the delinquency of a minor. M.B. testified that she had seen a lesbian film at Brown's home; that a movie which was confiscated by Detectives Sollie and Thomas was the same movie. This movie was not played for the jury. Only the package and title were displayed when the film was introduced. Detective Thomas testified that the victims had identified the film. Defense objected on the basis of hearsay. This objection was overruled. The court's decision to admit exhibits into evidence is left to the discretion of the court. Carter v. State, 310 So.2d 271, 273 (Miss. 1975); Gandy v. State, 373 So.2d 1042, 1047 (Miss. 1979). We find that no error was committed in allowing the introduction of the film into evidence. In summary, in McDonald this Court recognized that several instances of inflammatory and irrelevant material, taken as a whole, may result in a fatally prejudicial proceeding. 285 So.2d at 179. The case sub judice does not qualify as such a proceeding. AFFIRMED. ROY NOBLE LEE, C.J., HAWKINS and DAN M. LEE, P.JJ., and PRATHER, ROBERTSON, SULLIVAN, ANDERSON and ZUCCARO, JJ., concur.