Opinion ID: 2546826
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Evidence Regarding Victims

Text: Decay further argues that the circuit court erred by not allowing testimony regarding toxicology reports that evidenced drugs in the victims' blood streams during the guilt phase of trial. The State argues that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion by prohibiting the evidence, or, alternatively, that the error was harmless. The most general rule of evidence is that all relevant evidence is admissible. Ark. R. Evid. 402 (2009). The circuit court is vested with a great deal of discretion in determining whether the evidence is relevant, and we will not overturn the circuit court's decision unless it constitutes a clear error or a manifest abuse of discretion. See Parish v. State, 357 Ark. 260, 163 S.W.3d 843 (2004). Before trial, the State filed a motion in limine to exclude testimony regarding both victims' personal lives during the guilt phase of trial. The circuit court suggested that the parties come to an agreement about what testimony or evidence could be elicited regarding the victims, specifically regarding the evidence of drug use and the toxicology reports of the victims. An agreement was originally made that the toxicology reports would not be addressed. However, during trial, Decay's counsel argued that the door had been opened for the admission of that evidence because the State elicited testimony about whether illegal drugs were found in the victims' apartment. The circuit court ruled that because there had been an agreement to not address the toxicology reports, it would not be permitted. Here, while the circuit court ruled, it did so on the basis of a prior agreement rather than making a proper finding of whether or not the toxicology reports had become relevant and admissible. Therefore, the circuit court erred. However, Decay fails to show how he was prejudiced by that error, and we fail to find any such prejudice. An appellate court will not reverse a circuit court's evidentiary ruling absent a showing of prejudice. See Harris v. State, 366 Ark. 190, 234 S.W.3d 273 (2006).