Opinion ID: 7089211
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Tench's Relationship with His Mother

Text: {¶ 163} Tench argues that it was improper for the state to introduce Kyker's testimony that in October 2013, he had grabbed his mother's arm and made her cry. He further argues that it was improper for the state to introduce evidence of hostile statements he made to and about his mother in the months leading up to the murder. There were three such statements: {¶ 164} Noreta Dean, a neighbor of the Tenches, testified that during the summer of 2013, Tench left the house, yelled, Fuck you, bitch, at Mary, and sped away in his truck. {¶ 165} Two of Tench's coworkers at the Old Carolina Barbecue in Fairlawn testified to things he said about his mother in October 2013. Sarah Morgan testified that while recounting an argument he had had with his mother, Tench said with apparent seriousness that he hated her. Juan Parrilla, Tench's supervisor, testified that Morgan had told him that Tench had said he hated his mother and wished she were dead. When Parrilla privately admonished Tench, he laughed and said, Well, she might as well be [dead].  {¶ 166} An emotion is always relevant to show the probability of appropriate ensuing action. 1A Wigmore, Evidence , Section 118, at 1697 (Tillers Rev.1983).  Thus, a defendant's hostility to a murder victim is relevant to whether he killed the victim. See State v. Nields , 93 Ohio St.3d 6 , 22, 752 N.E.2d 859 (2001) (defendant's assault on victim several weeks before murder was admissible; it showed a strained relationship between defendant and victim, which tended to show motive and intent to kill); State v. Allen , 73 Ohio St.3d 626 , 631, 653 N.E.2d 675 (1995) (evidence indicating defendant's hostility to victim cited to support guilty verdict). {¶ 167} Tench's actions and statements showed that the relationship between him and his mother was strained during the summer and fall of 2013. Moreover, the state did not use them as proof of his bad character. Finally, Tench's actions and statements were of high probative value, which the trial judge could reasonably find outweighed their potential for unfair prejudice. Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court did not err in admitting this evidence.