 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Rieb3/29/2005
inly evidence of Rieb's past medical treatment is relevant in the sense asserted by Rieb on appeal, namely because it does, to some degree, corroborate the instances of past sexual abuse. However, even relevant evidence may be excluded "if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence." Rule 403, SCRE. A trial judge's decision regarding the competency of testimony under Rule 403, SCRE, should be reversed only in exceptional circumstances and this court is obligated to give great deference to the trial court's judgment. State v. Slocumb, 336 S.C. 619, 633, 521 S.E.2d 507, 514 (Ct. App. 1999). The decision to exclude evidence under Rule 403 should not be reversed simply because an appellate court believes it would have decided the matter otherwise. Id.
In excluding the testimony in the present case, the court was simply accepting the State's argument that such evidence would likely mislead the jury into thinking an insanity or diminished capacity style defense was at issue in the trial. Furthermore, as Rieb, his mother, father, and sister were allowed to testify regarding the occurrences, any corroboration of the past instances of abuse would have been cumulative; thus, the trail court acted within its discretion in excluding the evidence.
Moreover, the psychiatric treatment evidence was introduced merely to corroborate the past sexual abuses and the past sexual abuses introduced to establish an element of self-defense. Because the jury charge on self-defense was properly declined for lack of evidence on other elements, we see no undue prejudice in the testimony's exclusion. See State v. Mason, 215 S.C. 457, 463, 56 S.E.2d 90, 93 (1949) (affirming the exclusion of evidence that was merely cumulative and "of inconsequential probative value for the purpose for which is was offered").
CONCLUSION
Because we find Rieb was not entitled to a jury charge on the law of self-defense and conclude there was no reversible error in the trial court's exclusion of evidence regarding his past psychiatric treatment, Rieb's convictions are hereby AFFIRMED.
HEARN, C.J., KITTREDGE and WILLIAMS, JJ., concur.
Page 1 2 3 4 South Carolina DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|