Opinion ID: 1109226
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 16

Heading: whether the lower court erred in allowing evidence of a stolen gun

Text: ¶ 34. Tanner argues that the trial court erred by overruling Tanner's motion in limine to exclude testimony regarding Tom Harper's firearm, which had been stolen in December or January, 1997. The basis of Tanner's objection was there was no proof the stolen gun was the murder weapon or that Tanner was even the person who stole it. Additionally, he contends this was evidence of a crime totally unrelated to the murder and that the stolen gun theory was more prejudicial than probative. The trial court thereafter admitted Harper's testimony. Although this Court agrees that evidence of the gun should not have been admitted, we do not find this error requires reversal. ¶ 35. Harper saw Tanner at East Side Auto Sales in December or January of 1997. Harper, Tanner, and Sam Ray (Sam) engaged in a conversation. During that conversation, Harper testified that Tanner asked Sam if he could borrow a pistol to hunt snakes and frogs. Sam replied that his pistol was locked up, but informed Tanner that Harper's pistol was in a desk drawer at Harper's camp. Harper later discovered that his gun was missing from the drawer. Harper also testified that he was unsure as to exactly when he found the gun missing. ¶ 36. There was no evidence presented that Harper's gun was the actual murder weapon. Harper himself testified that the trailer where the gun was kept was always unlocked. Additionally, Harper testified that he initially thought someone else took the gun. Taking the above testimony into consideration, we find sufficient evidence was presented that would rebut any prejudicial effect this testimony had upon the jury. The trial testimony clearly indicated that the gun theory was merely possibility and not fact. ¶ 37. Although we agree it was error to admit such testimony, we do not find that the testimony harmed Tanner's defense. At most, the testimony entered was harmless error. In Thomas v. State, 711 So.2d 867, 872 (Miss.1998), this Court discussed the basic test for harmless error, wherein we stated, the inquiry is not whether the jury considered the improper evidence or law at all, but rather, whether the error was unimportant in relation to everything else the jury considered on the issue in question. In the present case, the error was unimportant in relation to everything else presented. Accordingly, we find this issue to be without merit.