Opinion ID: 2802747
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Handgun

Text: 23 ¶45. Prior to trial, Burleson’s counsel filed a motion in limine seeking to exclude the handgun found in the car Burleson was driving on the day of his arrest. The State then assured the trial court that “the gun will be linked to other testimony not to – to the capital murder via the robbery which occurred and things that followed this event . . . .” The State never made good on this promise. ¶46. Rule 402 of the Mississippi Rules of Evidence warns that “[e]vidence which is not relevant is not admissible.” 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.” M.R.E. 401. Here, it is indisputable that the handgun had no connection to the crime charged in the indictment and that the prosecution never proved that it did. In effect, the State displayed a handgun to the jury during the guilt phase of Burleson’s murder trial. There was no proof that the decedent was shot or that he ever saw this weapon. Burleson objected to the admissibility of the handgun and was irrevocably prejudiced by its admission.3 ¶47. Also, we should not consider the handgun in a vacuum. Not only did it have nothing to do with the alleged crime, it also was exhibited during a trial in which the court did not submit a circumstantial evidence instruction to the jury. Thus, whatever harm the irrelevant weapon inflicted upon the fairness of Burleson’s trial was made worse by the absence of a circumstantial evidence instruction. 3 The presence of the gun was so prejudicial and irrelevant that it likely confused the jury. In fact, in its brief submitted to this Court, the State itself gets confused about the importance of the handgun, opining “[t]his case arises from the May 15, 2010, shooting death of Stephen Holley, in Prentiss County, Mississippi.” 24