Opinion ID: 2039996
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Possible Threat

Text: The defendant, through another motion in limine, sought to exclude evidence of his statement to his wife that if you don't clean up your act, you may wind up with your throat slit. The defendant argued that the statement was a reference to danger from Dorthy Wyss' association with criminal drug dealers and was one of warning that a drug associate would slit her throat. The trial court, while acknowledging that a strong argument could be made that the statement was made in the context of her conduct and who she is hanging around with, ruled the testimony admissible. The trial court found that the testimony was relevant because of the fact that it is such a highly coincidental circumstance, that that's in fact how she met her death. We hold that the court did not abuse its discretion in admitting this testimony. The defendant argues that the evidence should have been excluded as irrelevant because the statement was not a prior threat by the defendant that he would kill his wife, but rather was a warning about her danger from associates. The defendant testified at trial that the statement was made during a discussion with his wife regarding drugs. The defendant's son-in-law, Lester Amble (Amble), testified that he heard the defendant tell his wife that she should clean up her act, watch the crowd that she hung with or she would find her throat slit. Amble testified that he did not take this statement to be a threat by the defendant that he would cut her throat. An officer who interrogated Wyss testified that he asked the defendant if he had ever threatened his wife. The defendant admitted that he had and volunteered that he told her that she would find her throat slit if she didn't clean up her act. Another officer testified that he heard this exchange. We conclude that the jury could find from the officer's testimony that the defendant himself considered his statement a threat to his wife. Prior threats by an accused against a victim are relevant. Simpson v. State, 83 Wis. 2d 494, 511, 266 N.W.2d 270 (1978). Thus, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the statement on grounds of relevancy. The defendant also contends that the statement was too remote to have probative value. Remoteness is an aspect of relevancy. State v. Sonnenberg, 117 Wis. 2d 159, 167, 172, 344 N.W.2d 95 (1984). Amble testified that this statement was made in September or October of 1980, a little over a year before Dorthy Wyss' murder. The defendant testified that he had made the statement a few months previously. We do not find that the statement was too remote in time to be relevant. Accordingly, we do not find that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the testimony after concluding that it was not too remote in time.