Opinion ID: 2330701
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Admission of the Threats.

Text: Evidence of threats made by a criminally accused to witnesses testifying against him are not admissible to show the defendant's bad character. M.R.Evid. 404(b). [4] If, however, the presiding justice determines that such evidence is relevant and more probative than prejudicial, confusing, misleading, or cumulative, and that the evidence is offered for a purpose other than establishing character, he may, in his discretion, admit the testimony regarding threats. M.R.Evid. 401, 403, 404(b); see Pierce v. State, 463 A.2d at 761 and n. 1; State v. Cyr, 389 A.2d at 837 n. 2. Previously, we have recognized that evidence of threats made by a defendant to witnesses against him may be admitted to show the defendant's consciousness of guilt. State v. McEachern, 431 A.2d 39, 43-44 (Me.1981); see McCormick's Handbook on the Law of Evidence § 273, at 660 (2d ed. 1972). Although the evidence was excluded as unduly prejudicial for this purpose alone, we cannot say it was error to admit the evidence relating to the threats for the purpose of showing consciousness of guilt and identity, when, as here, the identity of the perpetrator of the crimes was the ultimate issue for resolution at trial. See United States v. DeVaughn, 601 F.2d 42, 46 (2d Cir.1979) (evidence of other acts tending to establish identity inadmissible when identity of perpetrator is not in issue). The entry is: Judgment affirmed. All concurring.