Opinion ID: 1702126
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Admission of Flashlight

Text: ¶ 12. Burnside contends that the trial court's admission of the flashlight into evidence constituted reversible error. We do not agree. ¶ 13. During the State's examination of Deputy Lilly the record reflects the following exchange regarding introduction of the flashlight: Mr. Duncan: I want to show you some pictures. These are marked Exhibits 2 and 3. What is shown in those photographs? Deputy Lilly: That's me with cuts and scratches. Mr. Duncan: Where did those cuts and scratches come from? Deputy Lilly: From the altercation and in the chase with Mr. Burnside. Mr. Duncan: I want to show you what's marked Exhibit No. 4 there. What is shown in that photograph? Deputy Lilly: It's a cut on the top of my head. Mr. Duncan: Where did it come from? Deputy Lilly: Apparently from the flashlight. Mr. Duncan: Your Honor, at this time we would offer these photographs and this flashlight as exhibits. The Court: Let them be marked. Mr. Brooks: Your Honor, we would object to Exhibit No. 1, the flashlight, for the reason that the witness has not identified that as the flashlight used but as being like the flashlight. The Court: I am going to sustain the objection for I don't think he has completely described this flashlight sufficiently to compare to the flashlight that was actually used. Mr. Duncan: Can I go ahead and have the photographs marked? The Court: Yes. PHOTOGRAPHS REFERRED TO, BEING OFFERED INTO EVIDENCE, WERE THEN AND THERE IDENTIFIED AND MARKED AS STATE'S EXHIBIT NO. 2, STATE'S EXHIBIT NO. 3, AND STATE'S EXHIBIT NO. 4 AND MADE A PART OF THE RECORD HEREOF. Mr. Duncan: Now, Deputy Lilly, I want to show you this flashlight marked Exhibit No. 1. I believe you had said earlier that was like the flashlight that you had. Deputy Lilly: Correct. Mr. Duncan: Explain that for us. Deputy Lilly: What happened that night, there were several things happened. There was several flashlights just alike the night this happened. During all the stuff that happened, going in the woods, Mr. Burnside in the woods, and all this stuff, there was at least three of these flashlights that were just alike that were passed around. At the time we didn't exactly know which flashlight was which. Mr. Duncan: Who did they belong to? Deputy Lilly: Deputy Johnson, myself, and I believe the Sheriff had one also. Mr. Duncan: In the confusion, you kind of got the flashlights mixed up? Deputy Lilly: That is correct Mr. Duncan: And in the end, did you know which one was yours? Deputy Lilly: Didn't know which one was which. Mr. Duncan: Nevertheless, the flashlight you have there, is it exactly like the one you had that night? Deputy Lilly: That is correct, exactly like it. Mr. Duncan: Your Honor, at this time, we would offer it. The Court: Let it be marked. Mr. Brooks: Same objection. The Court: Overruled. FLASHLIGHT REFERRED TO, BEING OFFERED INTO EVIDENCE, WAS THEN AND THERE IDENTIFIED AND MARKED AS STATE'S EXHIBIT NO. 1 AND MADE A PART OF THE RECORD HEREOF. ¶ 14. The State offered the flashlight as being exactly like the flashlight that Deputy Lilly had during the altercation with Burnside. Deputy Lilly testified that his flashlight and 2 other identical flashlights were mixed together and indistinguishable. According to Deputy Lilly's testimony, the flashlight was exactly like his flashlight that Burnside hit him with during the altercation. The flashlight was admitted into evidence under that condition. ¶ 15. M.R.E. 901(a) states that the requirement of authentication or identification as a condition precedent to admissibility is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims. ¶ 16. The trial court admitted the flashlight as being exactly like Deputy Lilly's flashlight used in the altercation. The flashlight was not offered as the flashlight actually used. The jury heard Deputy Lilly's testimony that he could not identify the flashlight as the actual flashlight used. ¶ 17. Furthermore, Burnside was convicted of the simple assault of Deputy Lilly. Clearly, Deputy Lilly's testimony regarding the attack in the woods by Burnside resulting in Deputy Lilly receiving cuts, scratches and bruises is sufficient to support the conviction without the flashlight. Photographs of the deputy's injuries were also admitted into evidence. Therefore, any error would be harmless error. ¶ 18. Here the admission of the flashlight was not necessary to establish the charge of simple assault on Deputy Lilly. This Court has held that errors were harmless where the same result would have been reached had they not existed. Kolberg v. State, 829 So.2d 29, 49 (Miss.2002) (quoting Lancaster v. State, 200 So. 721, 722 (Miss.1941)). In Kolberg, this Court further stated that even where error has occurred, we will not reverse a conviction where the overwhelming weight of the evidence supports the guilty verdict. Kolberg, 829 So.2d at 49 (quoting Lentz v. State, 604 So.2d 243, 249 (Miss.1992)). We find this assignment of error to be without merit.