Opinion ID: 1812730
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Did the trial court err in admitting in evidence bloody trousers worn by McLendon at the time of the shooting, since they were irrelevant to the issues and were offered for the purpose of inflaming the jury?

Text: The appellant testified that he did not see blood on the deceased's clothes after he fired the last shot and that he did not know he had hit the deceased. The State argues that the purpose for introduction of the clothes was to show the position of the bullet hole, the nature of the wound which resulted in profuse bleeding, and to contradict the evidence of appellant. The clothes of deceased had some probative value. Williams v. State, 354 So.2d 266 (Miss. 1978). Furthermore, the trial judge has a wide discretion in permitting introduction of such evidence, and we cannot say that he abused his discretion under the facts of this case. Haralson v. State, 318 So.2d 891 (Miss. 1975).