Opinion ID: 1967394
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: eddy's testimony regarding threats made by stephen kelly

Text: As the majority says, generally evidence of threats made to a witness is admissible only upon a showing that the defendant approved, encouraged or acquiesced in the making of those threats. Because there was no evidence presented in this case linking either defendant to threats made by Stephen Kelly, testimony of such threats was irrelevant. Further, such testimony is obviously hearsay. My view does not comport with the majority's fighting fire with fire doctrine as applied in this case. The fact that defense counsel first asked Eddy on cross-examination if he had had a conversation with Stephen Kelly does not automatically make the substance of that irrelevant and prejudicial conversation, which is hearsay, admissible. The majority conclusion suggests that anytime a defense attorney in a criminal trial asks a witness whether he or she ever had a conversation with a third party, the substance of that conversation may then be elicited, over objection, by opposing counsel. In any event, Eddy's testimony in this case was, as the majority concedes, inadmissible, and because it implicitly linked defendants to the making of threats to a witness, it was highly prejudicial and its admission violated defendants' rights to a fair trial. For the reasons delineated, I would sustain the defendants' appeals, vacate their convictions, and remand the case to the Superior Court for a new trial.