Opinion ID: 70234
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Cemetery Testimony

Text: 32 During the guilt phase of the trial, the government presented evidence showing that Donaldson shot Whitehead rendering him unconscious. Williams does not dispute the admissibility of this evidence. The district court, however, also allowed the government to elicit that Whitehead was physically located in the cemetery at the time of the trial. Williams contends that this particular evidence was irrelevant and improperly prejudiced the jury. 33 Evidence is relevant if it has 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. Fed.R.Evid. 401. In a criminal trial, issues of consequence generally consist of the elements of the offenses charged and the relevant defenses (if any) raised to defeat criminal liability. United States v. Hall, 653 F.2d 1002, 1005 (5th Cir.1981). 6 [R]elevant evidence is admissible, but may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. Fed.R.Evid. 402 and 403. 34 When considering these evidentiary principles, we must be mindful that [t]he trial court is vested with broad discretion in ruling upon the relevancy and admissibility of evidence. United States v. Anderson, 872 F.2d 1508, 1515 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1004, 110 S.Ct. 566, 107 L.Ed.2d 560 (1989). Thus, under the abuse of discretion standard, there will be occasions in which we affirm the district court even though we would have gone the other way had it been our call. In re Rasbury, 24 F.3d 159, 168 (11th Cir.1994). 35 Had we been presented with this question de novo, we would have excluded the cemetery testimony because, as we have already stated, Whitehead's subsequent death was irrelevant to the elements of the carjacking offense. Nonetheless, we believe that the decision to admit the testimony as relevant evidence, which was not overly prejudicial pursuant to Rule 403, was within the district court's range of choice, although perhaps not by a wide margin. In re Rasbury, 24 F.3d at 168-69; cf. United States v. Accetturo, 966 F.2d 631, 637 (11th Cir.1992) (The fact that [the witness] had died was relevant to explain the fact that [the witness] did not testify. Had the jury not been told, they might well have incorrectly concluded that [the witness] was incarcerated or was afraid to testify, fearing the impeaching cross-examination that the defense obviously would have mounted.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. 1053, 122 L.Ed.2d 360 (1993). 36 Finally, and perhaps most importantly, even if the district court had abused its discretion, the admission of the single cemetery comment did not have a substantial influence on the outcome, and sufficient evidence supports the jury's verdict. United States v. Christopher, 923 F.2d 1545, 1552 (11th Cir.1991); see also United States v. Eyster, 948 F.2d 1196, 1212 (11th Cir.1991) (admission of irrelevant photograph of a dead body not reversible error).