Opinion ID: 1090220
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Whether the circuit court erred in sustaining the State's objections to the cross-examination of Officer Higgason.

Text: ¶ 9. The standard of review regarding admission [or exclusion] of evidence is abuse of discretion. Where error involves the admission or exclusion of evidence, this Court `will not reverse unless the error adversely affects a substantial right of a party. ' Whitten v. Cox, 799 So.2d 1, 13 (Miss.2000) (quoting Floyd v. City of Crystal Springs, 749 So.2d 110, 113 (Miss.1999)) (emphasis added). See also Jefferson v. State, 818 So.2d 1099, 1104 (Miss.2002) (quoting Hughes v. State, 735 So.2d 238, 270 (Miss.1999) (citations omitted)) ([u]nless the judge abuses this discretion so as to be prejudicial to the accused, the Court will not reverse this ruling.) (emphasis added). All relevant evidence is admissible, except as otherwise provided by the Constitution of the United States, the Constitution of the State of Mississippi, or by these rules. Evidence which is not relevant is not admissible. Miss. R. Evid. 402. Relevant evidence is defined as evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence. Miss. R. Evid. 401. Evidence is relevant if it has any tendency to prove a consequential fact.  Whitten, 799 So.2d at 15 (emphasis added). ¶ 10. Juarez and Larabel argue that the circuit court committed reversible error in sustaining the State's objection to their cross-examination of Higgason regarding whether he had been instructed not to videotape interviews. They argue that [c]ertainly [their] inquiries covered relevant subject matter. We do not agree. In Juarez and Larabel's written statements, they both alleged that the marijuana belonged to Bruce. Since there is no dispute regarding the substance of either the interviews or the written statements, the issue of videotaping the interviews is irrelevant to guilt or innocence here. No substantial right belonging to Juarez or Larabel was affected. Therefore, this Court concludes that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in sustaining the State's objection.