Opinion ID: 2537633
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Whether the trial court erred in overruling Fulgham's objection to the relevance of Vanessa Davis's testimony.

Text: ¶ 29. Fulgham argues that the trial court erred in permitting the State to present evidence of a romantic relationship between Fulgham and her brother, Tyler Edmonds. However, we find that Fulgham failed to object contemporaneously. [33] Fulgham objected after Vanessa Davis already had answered the State's questions regarding Fulgham's alleged romantic relationship with her brother. ¶ 30. Procedural bar notwithstanding, we address the merits of this claim. We review the admission or exclusion of evidence under an abuse-of-discretion standard. [34] And we find the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the testimony. We find that this testimony was at least marginally relevant to explain the relationship between Fulgham and her brother and the controlling influence that Fulgham exerted over him. This issue has no merit.