Opinion ID: 860675
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Baseball Bat

Text: Sorrells argues the court erred in allowing introduction of the baseball bat which was used to break into the pharmacy. His argument is that the bat was not relevant in that it was not shown that he used it. Some of the others involved in the crime wielded the bat. Evidence as to the condition of the crime scene and objects found at the scene are admissible if relevant and not remote in time and place. Rhodes v. State, 676 So. 2d 275, 282-83 (Miss. 1996), citing Wilkins v. State, 264 So. 2d 411, 413 (Miss. 1972). It is within the discretion of the trial judge to determine whether burglary tools found near the scene of a burglary are near enough in time and place to be of probative evidentiary value. Id. The baseball bat was found at the scene when the police arrived. The bat was evidence of the overall crime in which the State was trying to prove Sorrells participated. It was not remote in time and place. There was no error in its admission.