Maaaaybe. I’m not going to go hunting in the Kansas evidence rules, but the federal rules of evidence and most state rules contain a balancing test under which a piece of evidence can be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a risk of unfair prejudice. (It’s Fed. R. Evid. 403.) This looks to me like a classic 403 situation–especially since the prosecution could very easily raise the tattoo in ways that don’t let the jury know what it actually says. If I were the guy’s lawyer, I’d be objecting all over the place the moment a prosecutor carelessly or intentionally elicited that testimony.
(Again, I’m a lawyer, but not yours, and this isn’t legal advice.)
