Opinion ID: 171052
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Threatening Statement

Text: Tsosie objects to the district court’s admission into evidence of a threatening statement, made by one of the victim’s attackers, which was laced with profanity and insult toward the victim. The statement discussed the use of a shank to inflict injury upon the victim. See R., Vol. VI at 262 (“Shank that fat fer. Shank him. He’s – he’s nothing. He’s nothing.”); see also id. at 259, 261. Tsosie argues that because no one was able to identify him as the declarant, the statement was irrelevant and unduly prejudicial. Tsosie offers no legal basis for his argument, however, besides a single citation to Rule 402 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. See Fed. R. Evid. 402 (“Evidence which is not relevant is not admissible.”). -9- The statement was relevant, and therefore admissible under Rule 402. 2 “‘Relevant evidence’ means 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. The threatening statement made more probable the crucial facts that the victim had been attacked intentionally, with a dangerous weapon, and with a desire to do bodily harm. All of these facts needed to be proved by the government. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 1153, 113(a)(3) and (a)(6); see also United States v. Bruce, 458 F.3d 1157, 1165 n.4 (10th Cir. 2006) (“The elements differentiating assault with a dangerous weapon from simple assault are the use of a deadly weapon and the intent to commit bodily harm.”). Although no shank, or knife, was recovered from the scene, and the count alleging assault with a knife was dropped from the indictment, the statement remained relevant to the three charged counts of assault with a dangerous weapon and assault resulting in serious bodily injury. The attackers were expressing their intent to commit bodily harm, and to do so with a dangerous weapon. It is irrelevant whether Tsosie or one of his cohorts made the statement. The government prosecuted Tsosie under an aiding-and-abetting theory of 2 See Fed. R. Evid. 402 (“All relevant evidence is admissible, except as otherwise provided by the Constitution of the United States, by Act of Congress, by these rules, or by other rules prescribed by the Supreme Court pursuant to statutory authority. Evidence which is not relevant is not admissible.”). -10- liability, in which it needed only to prove Tsosie helped or aided, in some way, someone else commit the charged crime. See 18 U.S.C. § 2(a) (“Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal.”). The statement reveals the intent to inflict bodily harm by the group, which was acting in concert and of which Tsosie was a member. The district court acted within its discretion in overruling the defense’s objection to the statement.