Opinion ID: 780062
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Admission of guns

Text: 78 Both Randall and Terry appeal the district court's admission into evidence of three guns recovered from their father's house and of one gun from Terry's yard. We will not reverse a district court's decision concerning the admission of evidence unless the ruling constitutes an abuse of discretion. Gibson v. United States, 271 F.3d 247, 254 (6th Cir.2001). In reviewing the trial court's decision for an abuse of discretion, the appellate court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to its proponent, giving the evidence its maximum reasonable probative force and its minimum reasonable prejudicial value. Black v. Ryder/P.I.E. Nationwide, Inc., 15 F.3d 573, 587 (6th Cir.1994) (internal quotation marks omitted). Moreover, [e]ven if the trial court abuses its discretion, a new trial is not required unless `substantial rights' of a party are affected. Id. An erroneous admission of evidence that does not affect the substantial rights of a party is considered harmless, and should be disregarded. Gibson, 271 F.3d at 254. 79 To be relevant, evidence need have some bearing on the probability of `the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action.' Black, 15 F.3d at 587 (quoting Fed.R.Evid. 401). The Copes contend that the guns that were admitted into evidence have nothing to do with the crime charged. We disagree. Although the government could not identify with certainty the gun that was used in the January 22, 1999 shooting, this proof showed that Terry had access to the type of gun used in the shooting. On balance, we are of the opinion that the district court did not abuse its discretion in ruling that the guns' probative value was not substantially outweighed by their prejudicial effect. See Fed.R.Evid. 403 ([E]vidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.). 80 A closer issue is presented as to whether the district court abused its discretion in leaving the guns on display during the trial. As stated above, there was no direct evidence proving that any one of these particular guns was used in the January 22, 1999 shooting. The government's ballistics expert testified that any of 50 to 100 million guns could have been used. A reasonable argument could therefore be made that the probative value of leaving the guns on display during the trial was substantially outweighed by their unfair prejudicial effect, especially since photographs of the guns were also admitted into evidence. Because the jury had the benefit of seeing both the guns and the photographs, we can discern no reason to continuously display the guns before the jury for such a prolonged period of time. The Copes have not shown, however, that the extended display of the guns affected their substantial rights. Accordingly, we conclude that the district court's abuse of discretion, if any, was harmless. Gibson, 271 F.3d at 254.