Court Opinion

ID: 9569016
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:09:45.647401+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:19:36.046249
License: Public Domain

Fletcher, Presiding Justice,
concurring specially in part.
I concur in the majority opinion except for the rationale of Divi*452sion 25.
Greene’s evidence during the sentencing phase that he was a model prisoner made relevant his conduct during his incarceration prior to trial. Therefore, the state’s evidence that Greene made violent threats while purporting to be a model prisoner was admissible.
Greene’s attempt to show that he had been a model prisoner while in the custody of the Sheriff of Taylor County did not, however, make relevant the fact that the Sheriff of Clayton County undertook extraordinary security measures during trial. Had an objection been raised, the trial court should have sustained it because that evidence was not relevant.
The admission of this evidence, even if over objection, was not so highly prejudicial as to require reversal. Visible signs of extraordinary security and conditions such as shackles and prison clothing are considered highly prejudicial because they are “constant reminder^] of the accused’s condition.”2 The challenged evidence here was a passing reference to unspecified security measures. In the absence of any details or embellishment, this brief statement was unlikely to influence the jury as would the constant sight of shackles.

 Estelle v. Williams, 425 U. S. 501, 504 (96 SC 1691, 48 LE2d 126) (1976).