Opinion ID: 2606343
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Nelson incidents

Text: During the state's offer of proof regarding the car arson, gun threat, and knife incident, the prosecutor avowed that Nelson would testify about a threat defendant allegedly made after the victim's body was found that he would have an accident if he talked to the police. Although defendant did not challenge the admissibility of the statement itself, the trial court ruled that details of these other incidents would be admitted to show whether Nelson took the threat seriously. He later added that they would also show defendant's response to threatening situations, as well as his relationship with Mr. Nelson, who's apparently going to be a pretty important witness. Concerning the threat, however, Nelson testified to only the following: Q. Did Jake ever have conversations with you about you talking to the police? A. Yes, he did. Q. And what was it that he told you? A. That if the police contacted me I wasI was supposed to say nothing. I didn't know anything. To play stupid. Q. Did he ever tell you what would happen to you if you talked to the police? A. Yeah. I would become one of his accidents. Q. Did he ever indicate to you what would happen to you if he got busted? A. Yes, he did. Q. What did he indicate to you? A. That I would be an accident either when it happened or if and when he gets out. (Emphasis added). Even if we assume that this conversation referred to the murder rather than defendant's other illegal activities, and that it took place after the victim's body was found, whether Nelson thought defendant's threats were serious was essentially irrelevant. He admitted during cross-examination that he never hesitated in talking to the police. There also was no suggestion that his delay in telling authorities about defendant's dream occurred because he feared retaliation. Cf. State v. Williams, 183 Ariz. 368, 376, 904 P.2d 437, 445 (1995) (attempted murder of a witness admissible to explain another's initial refusal to tell the truth about charged crime); State v. Jeffers, 135 Ariz. 404, 417, 661 P.2d 1105, 1118 (1983) (assaults on others admissible to explain witness's fear of defendant and reason for delayed reporting). Moreover, as previously noted, defendant's pattern of retaliating when crossed is just another way of saying propensity for violence. Thus, it too was an improper basis for admitting the arson, gun, and knife incidents.