Opinion ID: 1224510
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: did the trial court err by refusing to admit the state's charging instrument?

Text: {10} The State filed a petition charging Devine with regard to the events occurring on November 2, 1995. Defendant claims that by this action, the State pleaded that the facts alleged in the petition were true. He asserts that his due process rights to a fundamentally fair trial were deprived when the trial court ruled that the statement was inadmissible under Rule 11-403 NMRA 1998 (Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.). The trial court found that the probative value would be substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion and misleading the jury. {11} Defendant suggests that the petition contained implicit admissions that Eric Devine was the aggressor in the gun battle that lead [sic] to the death of Lynnae Lucero, and that the trial court abused its discretion by finding that the prejudicial effect outweighed its probative value. The determination of probative value and other relevant considerations must be left to the sound discretion of the trial judge. The essence of a discretionary decision is the balancing of the probative value of the evidence against its capacity to prejudice. State v. Bowman, 104 N.M. 19, 22, 715 P.2d 467, 470 (Ct.App. 1986) (citation omitted). We hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to admit the petition. {12} Even if we held that the trial court erred by refusing to admit the petition, the error would be harmless, because Defendant's allegation that Devine was the instigator of the altercation leading to Lynnae's death was already before the jury. Lorenzo Lucero testified that Defendant told him that Devine had shot at him earlier that afternoon. Lorenzo testified that Defendant fired once in the air while Devine was looking towards them. He then testified that Devine pulled out his gun and started shooting at them. Thus, the evidence within the petition was cumulative to evidence which was before the jury, and error, if there was any, was harmless. See State v. Woodward, 121 N.M. 1, 10, 908 P.2d 231, 240 (1995) (The erroneous admission of cumulative evidence is harmless error because it does not prejudice the defendant.).