Opinion ID: 1102114
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: standard of review

Text: ¶ 12. Determining the relevancy and admissibility of evidence is within the discretion of the trial judge, and we will reverse only in the event that discretion has been abused. Rials v. Duckworth, 822 So.2d 283, 287 (Miss.2002); Brandon HMA, Inc. v. Bradshaw, 809 So.2d 611, 618 (Miss.2001); Buel v. Sims, 798 So.2d 425, 429 (Miss.2001); Herring v. Poirrier, 797 So.2d 797, 804 (Miss.2000).
¶ 13. Abrams contends that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of his possible alcohol consumption. Dallas Slatton testified that he smelled alcohol on Abrams' breath as he attended to Abrams and noted the presence of beer in the truck. Ben Kilgore, a game warden with the Department of Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks, also testified as to the presence of alcohol in Abrams' pick-up. His report of the incident stated as much in pertinent part: In the vehicle there was a very large pool of blood in the floor board of the driver's side. On the seat was a Q-Beam which was plugged into the lighter outlet. There were two rifles on the seat. One was a bolt action 30-30 with a scope. The other was a twenty two rifle. There was a sack on the seat of the passenger side. It contained two unopened Natural Lite beers [and] one empty Natural Lite beer bottle. These were in the Natural Lite six-pack carton. The two unopened beer bottles were very cold when I felt of them. There was also a Natural Lite beer bottle in the drink holder on the dash. It was about 1/4 full. David Minyard, whose wife initially found Abrams lying in the street and called him for assistance, testified to the same effect. ¶ 14. Specifically, Abrams claims reversible error and asserts there was no evidence that alcohol had anything to do with the accident and the proof never established that he was actually intoxicated. Marlin responds that the evidence was relevant to show negligence, credibility and causation. ¶ 15. Abrams relies heavily on our decision in Donald v. Triple S Well Service, Inc., 708 So.2d 1318 (Miss.1998). In Donald, a case in which the plaintiff slipped and fell while working on a gas well, the defense elicited testimony that Donald's breath smelled of alcohol on prior occasions while on the job. 708 So.2d at 1322. However, Triple S did not produce a witness that actually observed Donald drinking. Id. at 1324. We held that the evidence never established that Donald had a habit of drinking on the job. Id. at 1323. We also noted that while possibly admissible under Miss. R. Evid. 406, it was unfairly prejudicial under Miss. R. Evid. 403. Id. at 1324. Regarding admissibility of such evidence, we held, Testimony of alleged alcohol consumption should not be allowed before the jury without a minimal showing of admissibility or causal connection between the alleged consumption of alcohol and the accidents involving Donald. Id. (emphasis added). ¶ 16. Donald dealt with the admissibility of evidence of alcohol consumption to establish a habit of drinking. The Court of Appeals' decision in Hageney v. Jackson Furniture of Danville, Inc., 746 So.2d 912 (Miss.Ct.App.1999), is more on point in that it deals with evidence of drinking just prior to the event in question in the context of a products liability action. The Hageneys brought a products liability action for injuries Tim Hageney sustained when a bar stool collapsed under his weight. 746 So.2d at 915. The trial court admitted evidence over a motion in limine that the Hageneys were drinking at the time of the accident. Id. at 920. Specifically, the trial court found that the Hageneys's state of sobriety was relevant in the jury's assessment of their credibility in relating the events surrounding the incident, and Tim's consumption of alcohol was relevant to the issue of whether Tim was contributorily negligent. Id. (citing Miss. Power & Light Co. v. Lumpkin, 725 So.2d 721 (Miss.1998)). The Court of Appeals concluded the trial court did not abuse its discretion when allowing the evidence. Id. ¶ 17. Though not cited by either party in their briefs, our decisions in Accu-Fab & Const., Inc. v. Ladner, 778 So.2d 766 (Miss.2001), and Pope v. McGee, 403 So.2d 1269 (Miss.1981), warrant discussion and distinction. In Accu-Fab, a case where the decedent fell through a hole in a roof at a construction site, evidence of a marijuana cigarette found in Ladner's pocket and evidence of marijuana use were found to be irrelevant because there was no showing that the marijuana impaired Ladner. 778 So.2d at 772. In Pope, a case involving an automobile accident, we held that evidence of two six-packs of warm beer and some unidentified white powder were inadmissible because there was no proof of the driver's being intoxicated or impaired. 403 So.2d at 1271. In this case, however, there is proof of alcohol use namely, Slatton's testimony of smelling alcohol on Abrams' breath while administering aid to him. ¶ 18. In the instant case, there was evidence of cold beer in Abrams' pick-up and the smell of alcohol on his breath. In our opinion, evidence of possible alcohol consumption just prior to the accident was highly relevant and probative as to Abrams' credibility, his recollection of the accident since there were no other witnesses, and his contributory negligence.
¶ 19. Abrams also argues that evidence of possible illegal spotlighting of deer was completely irrelevant because the accident occurred inside the pick-up. Marlin counters arguing that the evidence was not probative that Abrams was participating in illegal activity but that the evidence was probative on the issue of his negligence. Marlin's position is that the jury may have reasonably concluded that Abrams'[s] spotlighting activity explained why he had a loaded rifle with the safety off in the confined space of his pick-up truck. ¶ 20. Abrams' only support of his argument is Shields v. Carnahan, 744 P.2d 1115 (Wyo.1987). Shields was a medical malpractice case in which the doctor elicited evidence that the plaintiff was on a late night trip with a man other than her husband. Id. at 1116. The Supreme Court of Wyoming reversed and remanded, holding that [u]nder the circumstances, whether appellant was on a late night trip with a man other than her husband, or whether that man had been drinking before he drove the accident vehicle had nothing to do with the malpractice issues involved in this case. Id. at 1116-17. ¶ 21. We disagree with Abrams' reliance on Shields. Shields dealt with pre-accident conduct completely irrelevant to the underlying issue of medical malpracticean issue totally unrelated and unconnected to the pre-accident conduct. In the instant case, however, the evidence supports Marlin's theory and established a causal connection that Abrams may have been spotlighting at the time and that the accident was a result of a full-cocked discharge, for he was in the cab of a compact pick-up pointing a loaded deer rifle at himself with its safety disengaged in violation of countless gun-handling principles. Slatton testified that he saw mud on Abrams' pick-up and a Q-Beam spotlight plugged into the dash and tracks leading to the pick-up from the property near the spot where he was found. Slatton also testified that, as he was administering first-aid to Abrams and talking to him to keep him alive, Abrams admitted he was out spotlighting. Such evidence is very relevant under Miss. R. Evid. 401, and its probative value is not outweighed by unfair prejudice. Miss. R. Evid. 403. ¶ 22. It is inherent that nearly all evidence is prejudicial to a party in one way or another. The inquiry as it regards admissibility is whether that prejudice is unfair. Miss. R. Evid. 403. Unfair prejudice, according the Advisory Committee Note to Fed.R.Evid. 403, means an undue tendency to suggest decision on an improper basis, commonly, though not necessarily, an emotional one. The possibility of illegal spotlighting was supported by the evidence and was meant to explain Marlin's theory of the accident, Abrams' credibility as a witness, and his recollection of how the accident occurred, not to evoke rancor against Abrams within the jury. The activity of spotlighting was contemporaneous to the accident, and it surely cannot be said that the only manner in which the accident occurred was the manner to which Abrams testified, which was a hammer-down bump fire while entering his pick-up after target shooting. Given the testimony of tire tracks leading from the nearby property and the fact that Abrams was found approximately fifteen miles from his mother's house when the hospital was not even remotely close to where he was found, we hold that admission of this evidence was not an abuse of the trial court's discretion.