2005); Pleasant v. State, 701 So.2d 799 (Miss. 1997); Hoops v. State, 681 So.2d 521 (Miss. 1996); Goree v. State, 748 So.2d 829 (Miss.Ct.App. 1999). He argues that there was no proper foundation for this evidence, and that the trial court did not balance the probative value and prejudicial effect of this evidence pursuant to Mississippi Rule of Evidence 403.
He explains that the court's actions violated his Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate himself and was unnecessary since Mrs. Miller had already identified him. Strohm also asserts that the forced display of his tattoos prejudiced the jury. He cites Randall v. State, 806 So.2d 185 (Miss. 2001) and Goree v. State, 748 So.2d 829 (Miss.Ct.App. 1999), as authorities for his position. Strohm actually cites Goree v. State, 794 So.2d 297 (Miss.Ct.App. 2001); however, it is obvious from the text of the cited authority that that is the wrong Goree. Strohm meant to cite, or should have cited, Goree v. State, 748 So.2d 829 (Miss.Ct.App. 1999).
We therefore find Burroughs factually distinguishable from the case currently before us. ¶ 30. Finally, Dao cites Goree v. State, 748 So.2d 829 (Miss.Ct.App. 1999). In Goree, Tommy Goree was convicted of the aggravated assault of Dwight Home.
We find the Snapchat video was "in some way related or linked to the crime charged." SeeGoree v. State , 748 So.2d 829, 838 (¶ 19) (Miss. Ct. App. 1999) (When determining whether the probative value of evidence is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to the defendant, "[t]he key issue remains whether [the evidence] was in some way related or linked to the crime charged."). As a result, its admission did not violate Rule 403.
Hudson, 977 So.2d at 349 (¶ 24). ¶ 12. Johnson cites Goree v. State, 748 So.2d 829 (Miss.Ct.App.1999), for the proposition that the proper foundation was not laid for this evidence, and as such, it should not have been admitted. In Goree, the circuit court had allowed testimony that the defendant was affiliated with a gang.