Opinion ID: 2329200
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Testimony of Peter Ouellette

Text: We next consider the testimony of Peter Ouellette, the boyfriend of the victim's mother at the time of the murder. During the state's direct examination of Ouellette, the following exchange took place: Q. And the few weeks prior to [the victim] being murdered, did she ever express to you her state of mind towards the defendant? A. Yes. Q. What did she tell you? A. That sometimes she was afraid when she was around him. Q. Excuse me. A. That she was afraid when she was around him. The defendant did not object to this testimony at the time it was offered but did request that it be stricken in his motion to strike and for a curative instruction. See footnote 10 of this opinion. The defendant argues that the trial court improperly admitted Ouellette's testimony because: (1) doubt exists as to whether the victim expressed a present state of mind; (2) the testimony failed to describe a constant state of mind; (3) the victim's state of mind was not relevant; and (4) the evidence was more prejudicial than probative. We disagree. The defendant contends that the lack of an explanation of the circumstances surrounding the victim's statements, in conjunction with Ouellette's testimony that the victim experienced fear sometimes and when she was around [the defendant], makes it questionable whether the victim expressed a present state of mind. Although the wording of Ouellette's testimony may raise doubts as to whether the victim expressed a present state of mind, we cannot say that it was a clear abuse of the trial court's discretion to determine that she had done so. The defendant also contends that, because the only value of the victim's state of mind was to explain the victim's actions or motives, testimony that she was afraid only sometimes or only when she was around [the defendant], was irrelevant because her state of mind was not constant. As explained in part I A 1 of this opinion, however, the evidence was relevant to explain the defendant's motive and to rebut the defendant's defense, regardless of whether it helped explain the victim's actions or motives. The defendant's argument that the evidence was more prejudicial than probative also fails for the reasons explained in part I A 1 of this opinion. 5