This case involves an appeal from a conviction for two counts of aggravated assault and *176one count of possession of methamphetamine. We affirm.
I.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Christopher Tucker (Tucker) and his wife M.T. were involved in an acrimonious divorce proceeding and a dispute over the property settlement, especially the family residence. On the night of July 3, 1995, there was a confrontation at M.T.’s residence with Tucker’s acquaintance. After this confrontation, C.T., the Tuckers’ fourteen year old son, and M.T.’s friend, left M.T.’s house in M.T.’s car and drove to the friend’s residence. While there, C.T. and the friend saw a light blue pickup truck drive by several times. As C.T. and the friend left the residence, they passed the same truck in the parking lot of a nearby school. The truck pulled out of the lot and headed toward the friend’s residence.
The friend turned around and followed the truck. While the friend and C.T. were following the truck, the truck stopped in the middle of the street and the driver, who had exited the truck, began yelling at the friend and C.T. As the Mend passed the truck, C.T. hung out of the vehicle window yelling back at the driver of the truck. The passenger of the truck exited the truck, then reached back in the truck, pulled out a gun and fired many shots at the car occupied by the Mend and C.T. Between eight and nine shots were fired.
C.T. later identified the passenger of the vehicle, and the person who fired the shots, as his father, Tucker. C.T. and the Mend both identified the driver of the car as Tucker’s girlMend.
Tucker was arrested the next morning, with two other individuals. Later, a bindle containing methamphetamine was found in Tucker’s wallet. Tucker was charged with two counts of attempted second degree murder, two counts of aggravated assault and one count of possession of methamphetamine. Tucker entered a plea of not guilty to all charges, claiming he was not with Tucker’s girlMend at the time of the shooting. After a jury trial, Tucker was found guilty of two counts of aggravated assault and one count of possession of methamphetamine. Tucker was acquitted of the two counts of attempted second degree murder.
The district court imposed a unified sentence of twenty years with five years fixed for count I of aggravated assault, a unified sentence of twenty years with five years fixed for count II of aggravated assault, and a unified sentence of three years with one year fixed for possession of methamphetamine. All sentences were to be served concurrently. Tucker appeals.
II.
ISSUES PRESENTED ON APPEAL
(1) Was Tucker’s right to present a defense violated when the trial court did not allow a videotape of the scene of the crime to be introduced?
(2) Was the jury properly instructed as to the elements of the crime of possession of methamphetamine?
(3) Did the trial court abuse its discretion in imposing a sentence not justified by the facts or the law?
III.
ANALYSIS
A. Tucker Has Not Shown That The District Court’s Decision To Exclude A Videotape Of The Crime Scene Is Erroneous.
Tucker argues that the district court erred in excluding the videotape because the tape was substantially similar to the scene of the crime. The district court ruled that portions of the videotape were irrelevant and that the tape could be edited to show only the relevant portions. The record does not show any attempt on the part of the defense to edit the videotape and introduce the relevant portions. Since the trial court excluded the evidence on the issue of relevancy, we review only whether the videotape was relevant.
Initially we note that whether the evidence was relevant to a material issue of the crime is reviewed de novo. State v. *177Raudebaugh, 124 Idaho 758, 766, 864 P.2d 596, 604 (1993). Under Idaho Rule of Evidence 401, evidence is relevant if it has any tendency to make a fact of consequence to the case more or less probable. IRE 401. All relevant evidence is generally admissible. IRE 402.
The videotape is not part of the record on appeal. Therefore, we are unable to review the videotape directly. Without a proper record to review, error will not be presumed an appeal. State v. Sima, 98 Idaho 643, 644, 570 P.2d 1333, 1334 (1977). Consequently, we presume the district court was correct in ruling portions of the videotape were irrelevant. The decision to exclude the evidence is affirmed.
B. The Jury Was Properly Instructed As To The Elements Of The Crime Of Possession Of A Controlled Substance.
When reviewing whether the jury was properly instructed, this Court exercises free review. State v. Gleason, 123 Idaho 62, 65, 844 P.2d 691, 694 (1992). The instructions must be reviewed as a whole to insure whether any particular instruction fairly represents the applicable law. State v. Eastman, 122 Idaho 87, 89, 831 P.2d 555, 557 (1992).
Tucker argues that the jury instructions were improper because the jury was commanded to find him guilty if he possessed either methamphetamine or a controlled substance. The relevant portion of jury instruction number 14 states:
In order for the Defendant to be guilty of COUNT III — POSSESSION OF METHAMPHETAMINE, the State must prove each of the following:
1. On or about July 4,1995,
2. in the State of Idaho,
3. the Defendant, CHRISTOPHER AVON TUCKER, possessed methamphetamine, and
4.the Defendant knew or should have known1 that it was either Methamphetamine or a controlled substance.
Tucker argues that since possession of some controlled substances can be a misdemeanor offense under Idaho law, and Tucker was charged with a felony, this instruction allowed the jury to find him guilty of a felony without finding him guilty of “possessing methamphetamine.”
This argument is refuted by the fact that another portion of the jury instruction required the jury to find that Tucker “possessed Methamphetamine.” Therefore, the jury had to find that Tucker possessed methamphetamine to convict Tucker of the crime charged. This instruction did not allow the jury to convict Tucker by merely finding Tucker possessed a controlled substance. We hold that the jury instruction was proper and required the jury to find Tucker possessed methamphetamine.
C. The Trial Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion In Imposing The Sentences.
A sentence imposed is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard. State v. Wolfe, 99 Idaho 382, 384, 582 P.2d 728, 730 (1978). To determine if the sentence is excessive, the appellate court will review the record, taking into account the nature of the offense, the character of the offender, and the protection of the public interest. State v. Shideler, 103 Idaho 593, 594, 651 P.2d 527, 528 (1982). The appellant must show that the sentence was excessive under a reasonable view of the facts. State v. Charboneau, 124 Idaho 497, 499, 861 P.2d 67, 69 (1993). The minimum period of confinement specified by the sentencing judge will be treated as the probable duration of confinement. State v. Viehweg, 127 Idaho 87, 93, 896 P.2d 995, 1001 (Ct.App.1995). We hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the concurrent sentences on Tucker.
*178IY.
CONCLUSION
Since we are unable to review the videotape, we presume that the trial court did not err in excluding the evidence as irrelevant. Additionally, we hold that the jury instruction properly instructed the jury to find the appellant guilty of all elements of the crime charged and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the three concurrent sentences.
TROUT, C.J., and JOHNSON and WALTERS, JJ., concur.. As noted in the special concurrence, no appellate challenge was directed to the "knew or should have known” language of the instruction. Accordingly, this opinion does not address the propriety of such language.