Opinion ID: 2757661
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Fear of Blake or His Family

Text: In his last argument regarding trial counsel’s examination of Teresa, Blake contends that trial counsel should have objected to or cross-examined Teresa about her testimony that she hesitated to tell the grand jury about Blake removing the guns from the car because at that time, she had received threatening phone calls and was “a little bit” afraid of Blake or his family. Blake has not demonstrated that trial counsel erred. Blake asserts that the testimony could have been excluded under section 90.403, Florida Statutes (2005), which provided that “[r]elevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” This argument is without merit. The question of why Teresa did not testify consistently at trial and before the grand jury was relevant to Teresa’s credibility. The danger of unfair prejudice—that if the jurors heard that Blake or his family were making threatening phone calls, they might conclude that - 32 - Blake was a violent person—did not substantially outweigh its probative value regarding Teresa’s credibility. Alternatively, Blake contends that if trial counsel failed to exclude the testimony, trial counsel should have cross-examined Teresa about her fear of Blake’s family. At trial, the State asked Teresa if she was afraid of Blake or his family, and Teresa answered, “[n]ot no more, no.” Blake has not explained how further questioning Teresa about her former—but no longer existing—fear would have been helpful to Blake.