Opinion ID: 1730596
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: The video tape was relevant.

Text: The relevancy and admissibility of evidence are largely within the discretion of the trial court and reversal may be had only where that discretion has been abused. Roberson v. State, 595 So.2d 1310, 1315 (Miss. 1992) (citing Johnston v. State, 567 So.2d 237, 238 (Miss. 1990)). The trial court below found that the matters on video tape were relevant and we agree. We do not believe that the events were so remote as to be inadmissible. In Howard v. State, 507 So.2d 58, 62 (Miss. 1987), the defendant asserted that the trial court erred by refusing to allow the defense to introduce a taped conversation into evidence where the conversation occurred prior to the alleged bribery. This Court found that the tapes were totally irrelevant to the crime of bribery and the defense of entrapment. Furthermore, the Court noted the remoteness of the taped events to the bribery which occurred a month later. Id. The determination of whether an event is too remote to be admissible is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial judge. Higgins v. State, 502 So.2d 332, 335 (Miss. 1987). The decision of the trial court will not be reversed in the absence of clear proof of an abuse of discretion. Stewart v. State, 226 So.2d 911, 912 (Miss. 1969) (upholding trial courts decision to exclude threats which occurred six months prior to shooting). In McCormick v. State , the Court held that: [c]ontinuous acts or a series of event, especially when closely connected in point of time, which ... are necessary or clearly helpful to a correct understanding of the main transaction  which tend to explain and elucidate the conduct and purposes of the parties  are as much of the res gestae as the direct act itself, and are admissible as a part of the transaction. McCormick v. State, 159 Miss. 610, 132 So. 757, 757 (1931). We find that the arrest and booking of the Defendant in the case sub judice were continuous acts closely connected in time. After the testimony of Adam, the instance of booking the Defendant became necessary in order for the jury to develop a clear understanding of the Defendant's actions and his expressed attitude and the aggression of the Defendant. It cannot be said that the lower court abused its discretion. Thus, the video tape was properly admitted.