Opinion ID: 2120270
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: the poem.

Text: Appellant contends it was error to admit into evidence a poem allegedly written by him while he was in jail awaiting trial. James Joy testified that in addition to sharing a jail cell, he and Appellant also shared notebooks, in which Appellant drew pictures and wrote poetry. The Commonwealth asked Joy which of them had written a poem that appeared on the back cover of a notebook and he responded that Appellant had written it. The poem reads as follows: I'm sorry for all your pain Sense of betrayal Healed my broken heart No one going to shut the door on my life Accomplishment Achievement Corrupted Temporarily Out of touch with reality Subconsciously I blame myself for the suffering Humiliation Embarrassment Unfortunately, truth has nothing to do with justice We all have skeletons in our closet The words and phrases, repressed desires, losing, silent screaming, argue/discussion, traumatic, the entire establishment, anger wastes energy, reassured, sympathetically, absolute jewel, along with some other indecipherable words also appear on the same page as the poem. Appellant argues that these writings should have been excluded as irrelevant. Evidence is relevant if it has any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence. KRE 401. To show that evidence is relevant, only a slight increase in probability must be shown. Springer v. Commonwealth, Ky., 998 S.W.2d 439, 449 (1999). The Commonwealth argues that the existence of Appellant's poem on Joy's notebook shows the closeness of their relationship, increasing the credibility of Joy's claim that Appellant confided to him that he had killed Johnson. While the theory is somewhat tenuous, it satisfies the minimal threshold for relevancy. An item of evidence, being but a single link in the chain of proof, need not prove conclusively the proposition for which it is offered. It need not even make that proposition appear more probable than not.... It is enough if the item could reasonably show that a fact is slightly more probable than it would appear without that evidence. Even after the probative force of the evidence is spent, the proposition for which it is offered still can seem quite improbable. Lawson, supra, § 2.05[3], at 80 (quoting Edward W. Cleary, McCormick on Evidence 542-43 (3d ed.1984)). Appellant asserts that even if the evidence is relevant, it should have been excluded under the balancing test of KRE 403, i.e., its probative value was substantially outweighed by the danger of undue prejudice, confusion of the issues, and misleading the jury. There is nothing in the poem that tends to incriminate Appellant or impugn his character. We perceive no abuse of discretion in its admission into evidence. Commonwealth v. English, Ky., 993 S.W.2d 941, 945 (1999).