Opinion ID: 2436501
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: good place to kill someoneinsurance testimony

Text: In her deposition testimony, Connie Mosier alleged that she had on one occasion traveled to Arkansas with Bennett and while at the Morrison Bluff river bridge Bennett allegedly commented, This would be a good place to kill someone. Mosier also testified concerning attempts by Bennett to obtain life insurance for her with Bennett as the designated beneficiary. Bennett's counsel objected on grounds that the probative value of the evidence was outweighed by unfair prejudice. The court admitted the evidence over counsel's objections. Whereas A.R.E. Rule 402 generally provides that all relevant evidence is admissible, Rule 403 provides that relevant evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. The question of prejudicial effect versus probative value is a matter addressed to the discretion of the trial judge, and on appeal this court will not disturb the trial court's decision in the absence of manifest abuse of that discretion. See e.g., Harris v. State, 295 Ark. 456, 748 S.W.2d 666 (1988). Again, because the proof may develop differently in the event of retrial, we do not rule on Bennett's argument that the trial court erred in admitting the evidence.