Opinion ID: 1341743
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Corey Butler's Testimony

Text: Defendant argues the trial court erred in allowing his son to testify about previous episodes of spousal abuse, including incidents where Defendant held a knife to Victim's throat and threatened to kill her. We agree. Recently, this Court reiterated the rule that [i]n homicide cases, evidence that the accused and the decedent had previous difficulty is admissible. The evidence is admissible to show the animus of the parties and to aid the jury in deciding who was the probable aggressor. State v. Taylor, 333 S.C. 159, 168, 508 S.E.2d 870, 874 (1998). Here, while it is true that no issue exists about the identity of a probable aggressor, the testimony would be relevant to proving the animus of the parties, specifically the abusive marital relationship between Defendant and Victim. See State v. Clinkscales, 231 S.C. 650, 99 S.E.2d 663 (1957)(finding testimony about prior difficulties between a husband and wife was admissible against husband in a murder case as long as specific details were not revealed). However, although evidence is relevant, it should be excluded where the danger of unfair prejudice substantially outweighs its probative value. Rule 403, SCRE. In the current case, Butler testified about events that occurred several years prior to the date of the killing. While we recognize that a trial judge is accorded broad discretion in ruling on the admissibility of the testimony, the remoteness in time of these events make them so prejudicial that Butler's testimony about his parent's marital relationship should have been excluded. See State v. King, 334 S.C. 504, 514 S.E.2d 578 (1999)(excluding evidence of Defendant's bad acts that occurred more than one year before the crime on trial).