 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
[T] State v. Bell5/4/2004
dence." State v. Wolfe, 157 N.C. App. 22, 33, 577 S.E.2d 655, 663, appeal dismissed and disc. review denied, 357 N.C. 255, 583 S.E.2d 289 (2003). This assignment of error is dismissed.
Defendant's remaining contention is that the court erred by admitting evidence of the racial slurs uttered by defendant. He argues the evidence should have been excluded by Rule of Evidence 403 because its probative value was outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. "It is well established that the admission of evidence without objection waives prior or subsequent objection to the admission of evidence of a similar character." State v. Campbell, 296 N.C. 394, 399, 250 S.E.2d 228, 231 (1979). Prior to any objection being entered by defendant, Officer Roberts testified regarding a minimum of four separate racist statements or slurs uttered by defendant as he was being transported to the jail. Subsequent to an objection being entered by defendant, Officer Roberts testified without objection regarding other racial slurs uttered by defendant after he arrived at the jail.
Moreover, even if defendant had not waived his objection, the decision whether or not to admit evidence under Rule 403 is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial judge. State v. Handy, 331 N.C. 515, 532, 419 S.E.2d 545, 554 (1992). An abuse of discretion in the admission of evidence pursuant to Rule 403 will be found only when "the court's ruling is manifestly unsupported by reason or is so arbitrary that it could not have been the result of a reasoned decision." State v. Hennis, 323 N.C. 279, 285, 372 S.E.2d 523, 527 (1988). Evidence is relevant and admissible if it has the tendency to prove a fact in issue. State v. Hannah, 312 N.C. 286, 294, 322 S.E.2d 148, 154 (1984). In this case, the evidence of defendant's uttering of racial slurs shows belligerent behavior, which tends to prove impairment by alcohol or drugs, an issue raised by the charge of driving while impaired. We find no abuse of discretion. Accordingly, defendant received a fair trial, free from prejudicial error.
No error.
Judges WYNN and McCULLOUGH concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).
|