Opinion ID: 1775413
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: did the trial court err in admitting into evidence the physical items found at the scene of the decedent's death?

Text: The warrantless search of Mrs. Kniep's trailer yielded ten items of evidence: a tan coat, a pair of pajama bottoms, a clawhammer, two pieces of a wooden handle, a pair of blue pants, a t-shirt, a towel, a pair of jockey style shorts, a wash rag and a pair of socks. Due to the fact that these items were bloodstained, counsel for Mrs. Kniep asserts that this evidence was inflammatory in nature. In support of this argument, Mrs. Kniep cites Overstreet v. State, 369 So.2d 275 (Miss. 1979). In Overstreet, this Court, citing Tudor v. State, 299 So.2d 682 (Miss. 1974), explains We have recently held a presumption of reversible error is created by the introduction of evidence inflammatory in nature, but that the presumption can be negated when it can be said with confidence that no harmful effect resulted. Id. at 277. Applying this rule in Overstreet, appellant argues that there was no identification that this was the decedent's blood. This Court in Overstreet also cautions, the balancing of inflammatory characteristics versus probative value is logically dependent upon the relevancy of the evidence. Overstreet, supra . In balancing these factors in this case, this Court must keep in mind the central issue of fact. More specifically, the jury had to decide whether the deceased died as a result of isopropyl alcohol or as the result of criminal agency. Therein, the State argues that these items contained probative value in establishing the cause of death. Considering the fact that these ten items are directly linked to the central issue (the cause of death), this Court finds no error on the part of the trial judge in their admission.