Opinion ID: 2614969
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Evidence of Threats and of A Previous Conviction For Aggravated Intimidation of A Witness

Text: Thomas insists that the admission of testimony regarding threats that he had allegedly made against Eddie if Eddie testified was prejudicial error. The threat testimony was objected to at trial on the grounds of relevance. Thomas also asserts that the State should not have been allowed to introduce Duchess Couser's previous conviction for aggravated intimidation of witnesses. Thomas believes that evidence of Duchess' alleged threats to witnesses regarding his case, including threats allegedly made in chambers, was improperly admitted. The State claims the evidence was relevant. Relevant evidence is statutorily defined as evidence having any tendency in reason to prove any material fact. K.S.A. 60-401(b). Relevancy is more a matter of logic than law. Evidence is relevant if it renders the desired inference more probable than it would be without the evidence. State v. Faulkner, 220 Kan. 153, Syl. ¶ 6, 551 P.2d 1247 (1976). The State identifies the rule that the admission of evidence rests within the sound discretion of the trial court, subject to exclusionary rules. State v. Carmichael, 240 Kan. 149, 157, 727 P.2d 918 (1986). In State v. Wilson, 108 Kan. 433, 435, 195 Pac. 618 (1921), we reasoned that attempts by the accused to conceal or destroy evidence, or to fabricate or procure false evidence, are incriminating circumstances that may be presented to the jury. See State v. Williams, 196 Kan. 628, 633, 413 P.2d 1006 (1966). The evidence of Thomas' threat to Eddie was properly admitted. The State concludes that, based on Thomas' own threats and on his long-term relationship with and control over Duchess, there was a connection between Thomas and threats made by Duchess. Consequently, the State claims that discretion was not abused in admitting evidence of Duchess' threats. Furthermore, the State contends that when Duchess denied making any such threats, her conviction for aggravated intimidation of a witness was properly admitted to rebut her denials. The State reasons, however, that if error occurred in the admission of either Duchess' threats or her conviction, it was harmless. We agree. The erroneous admission of evidence in a criminal trial does not require a reversal of conviction in every case, but only where it is of such a nature as to affect the outcome of the trial and deny substantial justice. State v. Walker, 239 Kan. 635, 644, 722 P.2d 556 (1986). We need not decide whether admission of the questioned testimony was error because Thomas has not shown that the admission might have affected the outcome of the trial and denied substantial justice. See Walker, 239 Kan. at 644. The Identity of A Confidential Informant Our standard of review on the trial court's failure to disclose the identity of a confidential informant is abuse of discretion. State v. Pink, 236 Kan. 715, Syl. ¶ 2, 696 P.2d 358 (1985). Thomas insists that the CI had material, exculpatory information for the defense. Thomas believes that the refusal to disclose the CI's identity denied him due process and the right to access exculpatory evidence. Thomas explains that the informer's privilege is codified at K.S.A. 60-436. He emphasizes that the identity of an informant should be revealed if the disclosure is essential to assure a fair determination of the issues. Thomas asserts that the denial of fundamental fairness and due process is glaring because the trial court did not allow him to bring the CI into the courtroom to testify about his conversations with Officer Fettke for the purpose of proving the truth of the matter asserted. The mere tipster is an informant whose information precipitates an investigation. In contrast to the tipster, the informant who actually engages in or observes the criminal activity of the defendant is in a position to provide independent evidence relevant to the defense of the case. State v. Washington, 244 Kan. 652, 658, 772 P.2d 768 (1989). The State contends that the CI was a tipster; consequently, disclosure was not essential to assure a fair trial. According to the State, the CI had no direct knowledge of the events forming the basis of the criminal charges against Thomas. A CI who is a mere tipster and whose information precipitates an investigation is generally not subject to identity disclosure. Washington, 244 Kan. at 657. We must determine [w]hether the informant could provide information essential to a fair trial by providing information relevant and helpful to the defense. 244 Kan. at 657. The trial court heard testimony from Officer Fettke and knew exactly what information the CI had provided the police. The informant was not a participant in or an observer of Thomas' criminal activity. The CI had information that two other people had taken a third party to the area where Richmond was murdered on the date of the crime but at some unknown time. The individual allegedly made some threatening type remarks about a drug dealer. The CI was not a party to this occurrence. The whereabouts of the principal players in this scenario, two women and allegedly Roger, were known to Thomas. The two women denied any such occurrence. The State is correct. The CI in the case at bar lacks direct knowledge regarding the events in question and is a mere tipster. Speculation and suspicion regarding what an informant might possibly testify to is not sufficient to require disclosure. State v. Pink, 236 Kan. at 722. Thomas has not met his burden to prove the identity of the CI is relevant and material. The trial court did not abuse its discretion. The facts and circumstances were carefully considered at two pretrial hearings on the motion to reveal the identity of the CI. Affirmed.