Opinion ID: 2682354
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Testimony of Danette Serr

Text: Farlee argues the trial court abused its discretion in allowing the testimony of Danette Serr, the long-time girlfriend of Eaton’s son. Serr testified she saw Eaton almost every day before the incident, and Eaton was “plumb fine.” Trial Tr. 465. She also testified there were physical and behavioral changes in Eaton after the incident as compared to before. Farlee argues this evidence was irrelevant, and thus should not have been admitted under Federal Rule of Evidence 402. He argues further that, even if it was relevant, the testimony should not have been admitted under Federal Rule of Evidence 403 because it was cumulative and prejudicial. “The trial court has broad discretion in determining the relevancy and admissibility of evidence.” United States v. Jiminez, 487 F.3d 1140, 1145 (8th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks omitted). Only relevant evidence is admissible in a trial. Fed. R. Evid. 402. Relevant evidence is evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence. Fed. R. Evid. 401. -14- “The threshold for relevance is quite minimal.” United States v. Holmes, 413 F.3d 770, 773 (8th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks omitted). Under Rule 403, relevant evidence may be excluded “if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of . . . unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.” Fed. R. Evid. 403. We reverse only if there is an abuse of the trial court’s discretion. United States v. Nelson, 988 F.2d 798, 805 (8th Cir. 1993). The district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting this evidence. Serr’s testimony helped the Government to establish Eaton suffered serious bodily injury, an element of one of the crimes with which he was charged. Farlee would not stipulate Eaton suffered serious bodily injury, and requested a lesser-included offense instruction that did not require serious bodily injury. To demonstrate Eaton in fact sustained serious bodily injuries, Serr testified to Eaton’s condition in the hospital, and the changes in his condition after the assault as compared to before. Having reviewed the record, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining this testimony was relevant and not so cumulative of other testimony or so prejudicial such that it necessitated exclusion.