Opinion ID: 1098133
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: whether the chancellor erred in admitting certain audio taped evidence at trial?

Text: ¶ 28. Thomas argues that during trial, Teresa was allowed to introduce into evidence an audio tape, over his objection. ¶ 29. Where a party specifically requests statements of the opposing party, and those statements are not provided, reversible error may occur. See Wallace v. Employers Mut. Cas. Co., 443 So.2d 843, 848 (Miss.1983). The admission of evidence is within the discretion of the chancellor, and reversal is not warranted unless judicial discretion is abused. Smith v. Jones, 654 So.2d 480, 486 (Miss.1995). Where the admission of evidence which was allegedly improperly admitted was not a determining factor in the chancellor's decision, and where the chancellor looked to the weight of other evidence, the admission of the evidence is harmless. See Limbaugh v. Limbaugh, 749 So.2d 1244, 1247-48 (Miss.Ct.App.1999). In addition, where a chancellor admits evidence for what its worth, the judgment shall not be reversed for improper admission of the evidence unless it affirmatively appears from the entire record that the judgment has resulted in a miscarriage of justice. Illinois Cent. R.R. v. Williams, 242 Miss. 586, 606, 135 So.2d 831, 839 (1961). ¶ 30. Thomas contends that there was a failure to disclose this tape in response to his interrogatory seeking disclosure of any witness, their expected testimony, and any documentary evidence. While Thomas did not specifically mention audio tapes, it is at least arguable that audio tapes are included in the term documentary evidence. See M.R.C.P. 34. ¶ 31. However, even if this Court were to find that the admission of the audio tapes was in error, the admission was harmless error. At trial, there was sufficient testimony from Teresa and other witnesses of cruel and inhuman treatment by Thomas to warrant a divorce on these grounds. Moreover, there is no indication from reading the judgment or the trial transcript that the audio tapes were determinative in the chancellor's decision. Indeed, the chancellor, on record, admitted the evidence for whatever probative value it has, indicating that the substance of the tape had no special meaning to the chancellor. ¶ 32. There was no miscarriage of justice that occurred with the admission of the audio tapes into evidence. There was ample evidence in the record to support a divorce on the ground of cruel and inhuman treatment.