Opinion ID: 2077593
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Tattoo Evidence Admissible

Text: The State introduced into evidence a tape recording of Roth, Jr.'s initial statement to Detective Morris, in which he said that he did not like guns. The State then called Roth, Jr.'s former girlfriend to testify that Roth, Jr. had a large tattoo of a pistol across his back, along with the words No Limit. The defense's objection to this evidence, as being irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial, was overruled. In this appeal, Roth, Jr. again argues the fact that he had a pistol tattooed on his back along with the words No Limit was of no relevance to the question of his guilt or innocence. The record reflects that the testimony describing the tattoo was advanced by the State in the context of countering Roth, Jr.'s statement to police that he had an aversion to guns. The State submitted that Roth, Jr.'s tattoo depicting a gun with the phrase No Limit stood in obvious contrast to his self-expressed disdain for guns in his statement to police. [19] Thus, the State elicited testimony describing the tattoo to establish that Roth, Jr. had lied to police about an aversion to guns. The State's effort to rebut Roth, Jr.'s statement that he was adverse to possessing a gun, in the context of an armed robbery and murder, was entirely proper. The trial judge did not abuse his discretion in admitting testimony describing Roth, Jr.'s tattoo for that purpose. The trial judge's ruling on that issue is affirmed as a proper exercise of discretion.