different line-up sessions,” of which one session was pertinent to Wright’s case. Id. at 218, 528 A.2d 498. The trial court reasoned that “to allow the jury to view the tape again and again would unduly emphasize that evidence.” Id. This Court perceived no error: [Wright] relies on the provision in Md. Rule 4-326(a) (which says, among other things) that “[U]nless the court for good cause shown orders otherwise, the jury may also take ... exhibits which have been admitted into evidence ...” into the jury room. As we see it, the “good cause” mentioned in that rule encompasses the reasons articulated by the trial court. We are not persuaded that the trial court was clearly wrong. Id. Adams, 183 Md.App. at 204-05, 960 A.2d at 1224. Judge Sharer also pointed out that [w]hat c 131 (1983) (<HOLDING>). The majority creates a rule that a trial
recognizing that a limiting instruction has the potential to cure any prejudice from the erroneous admission of evidence holding that 45second video of the victim playing basketball during the emotional testimony of victims mother did not have potential for creating undue prejudice and arousing emotions of jurors that outweighed the probative value of the evidence holding that causing delay and increasing costs causes undue prejudice recognizing potential for prejudice arising from undue emphasis on a tape recording by repetitive playing holding leave to amend should be freely granted absent a showing of undue delay bad faith undue prejudice or futility