Opinion ID: 1308987
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: did the superior court err in admitting the testimony of lew hahn?

Text: Local 959 argues that the trial court erred in admitting Lew Hahn's testimony concerning episodes of violence aimed at him while he was working for Odom during the strike. It argues that his testimony was not relevant because none of the violent acts against Hahn were aimed at Wells, and that even if the evidence was relevant, its prejudicial nature outweighed its probative value. Wells contends that while Hahn's testimony may not have been relevant to the issue of whether or not Local 959 engaged in extreme and outrageous conduct toward Wells, it was relevant to the issue of whether Wells suffered severe emotional distress as a result of the threat to his life, the intensity and duration of the emotional distress, and whether he acted reasonably in terminating his union membership because of the threat. That is, the testimony was offered not to prove the facts asserted, but to prove Wells' resultant state of mind based on the incidents related to him by Hahn. He argues that Hahn's testimony validated Wells' knowledge of incidents of violence, and that the description of these incidents was such that he believed that the threat to his life by Local 959 was, under the atmosphere of violence that he knew to exist, a threat that was serious and probable of imminent execution. Even if it was error to admit Hahn's testimony, he argues, the error was harmless because the testimony was minor, was not mentioned by Wells' counsel in closing argument, and the substance of the testimony was before the jury through other witnesses to whose testimony there was no objection. [17] In our view Hahn's testimony was relevant to Wells' state of mind and was probative of the likelihood that the Teamsters' alleged threat would cause Wells to experience severe emotional distress. [18] We must next determine whether this evidence should have been excluded because its probative value was outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. [19] Alaska R.Evid. 403. We hold that the superior court did not abuse its discretion in admitting this evidence. Hahn's testimony was for the most part cumulative: Wells himself testified that he had knowledge of some of the incidents mentioned, including windows being shot out, bullet holes in doors and vehicles, and tires being slashed. Likewise, Wells' wife testified that she told him of daily incidents of shootings, bullet holes in warehouse doors, and mass picketing. Moreover, attached to its trial brief, Local 959 included a copy of Wells' affidavit to the NLRB, which referred to statements made by Lew Hahn and others regarding the violence that occurred during the Odom strike. At trial Local 959 moved that this affidavit be admitted in evidence. While Hahn's testimony was more detailed than Wells', it was corroborative of Wells' state of mind, and it gave the jury particular details with which Wells was familiar  all of which assisted the jury in determining whether Wells' contention of emotional distress was plausible. Thus, we hold that the probative value of Hahn's testimony outweighed its prejudicial effect. [20]