Opinion ID: 1114161
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: discretionary ruling whether to exclude evidence because it is remote and cumulative

Text: Mrs. Buhrle testified at great length with respect to violence visited upon her by the victim. She was permitted to go back as far as eighteen years, relating specific acts of violence upon her and others. The trial judge was very liberal in allowing this type of testimony. There was other testimony to the same effect. The State never claimed nor produced any evidence to dispute Mrs. Buhrle's testimony that she had been subject to violence for many years. It was only when the defense attempted to again go over specific acts of violence occurring ten years before that the court limited this area of inquiry. Appellant's eldest son, Paul Dixon, was called by the appellant to testify on her behalf. Mr. Dixon had not lived in the Buhrle home since 1969. Appellant proposed to elicit from this witness specific past acts of violence committed by the victim prior to 1969. The trial court disallowed part of Mr. Dixon's testimony, ruling that this part of the evidence was remote and cumulative. As the trial judge stated: I'll permit the testimony of this witness to go to the  to the general relationship between the husband and wife in this case, but not into any specific question and answers as to specific incidents. The witness, Mr. Dixon, thereafter testified that his mother, appellant, was subject to physical and mental abuse and that he saw various incidents of violence in the home. Dixon also testified that the victim kept loaded guns around the house. Evidence of specific acts of violence are generally admissible in this type case. Evans v. United States, 277 F.2d 354, 1 A.L.R.3d 566 (D.C. Cir.1960); Mortimore v. State, 24 Wyo. 452, 161 P. 766 (1916); Rule 404(a)(2), W.R.E.; [5] Annotation 1 A.L.R. 571; 1 Wigmore, Evidence § 63 (1979); 2 Wigmore, Evidence § 248 (1979); 1 Wharton's Criminal Evidence, § 248 (1972). The trial judge did not, however, abuse his discretion in limiting the testimony of Paul Dixon as provided in Rule 403, W.R.E., because the evidence was remote and cumulative. Affirmed.