Opinion ID: 1881163
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Two Key Evidentiary Rulings.

Text: ¶ 28. The standard of review on appeal from evidentiary rulings is prescribed by Rule 103(a) of the Mississippi Rules of Evidence, which states [e]rror may not be predicated upon a ruling which admits or excludes evidence unless a substantial right of the party is affected.... This Court articulated the standard of review of evidentiary rulings and stated that [o]ur standard of review for the admission of or refusal to admit evidence is well settled. `Admission or suppression of evidence is within the discretion of the trial judge and will not be reversed absent an abuse of that discretion.' Church of God Pentecostal, Inc. v. Freewill Pentecostal Church of God, Inc., 716 So.2d 200, 210 (Miss.1998) (citing Broadhead v. Bonita Lakes Mall, Ltd. P'ship, 702 So.2d 92, 102 (Miss.1997) (quoting Sumrall v. Miss. Power Co., 693 So.2d 359, 365 (Miss. 1997))). ¶ 29. In applying that standard, the reviewing court may reverse a case only if the admission or exclusion of evidence,. . . result[s] in prejudice and harm or adversely affect[s] a substantial right of a party. K-Mart Corp. v. Hardy, 735 So.2d 975, 983 (Miss.1999) (citing Hansen v. State, 592 So.2d 114, 132 (Miss.1991)). Abuse of discretion is found when the reviewing court has a definite and firm conviction that the court below committed a clear error of judgment in the conclusion it reached upon weighing of relevant factors. Caracci v. Int'l Paper Co., 699 So.2d 546, 556 (Miss.1997). Accordingly, the reviewing court must let stand a trial judge's findings of evidentiary or ultimate fact when substantial evidence in the record supports those findings, or when the findings are not `clearly erroneous.' Crowe v. Smith, 603 So.2d 301, 305 (Miss. 1992) (quoting Matter of Estate of Varvaris, 528 So.2d 800, 802 (Miss.1988)). ¶ 30. The County claims that the circuit judge committed prejudicial error in two evidentiary rulings, which in turn, affected a substantial right of Quitman County. The first purported error occurred when the circuit judge barred the County from introducing expert testimony that the indigent defense system has affected the independence and effectiveness of the courts, and the second purported error occurred when the judge allowed local circuit judges to offer their opinions on the competence of the public defenders.