Opinion ID: 488727
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: References to a Murder

Text: 15 Norman Grenier, one of Munson's coconspirators in the November 20 transaction, was killed in December 1984. Munson argues that the court erred by allowing Christiansen and Pierce to mention that Grenier had been murdered. There was no timely objection to either testimony. 16 Pierce's comments were made while she was being cross-examined about the arrangement she made with the government. Pierce said she had been arraigned on drug charges shortly after Norman's funeral. A while later, still during cross-examination, she was asked why the government gave her $2,100. She responded: 17 A. Well, Mr. Rogers, you have to understand that there was a murder. I sat next to one. And until the murderer was caught, they felt it would be best if I was put somewhere to be safe. 18 Christiansen referred to Grenier's murder during direct examination. He was being asked about conversations he had with Munson: 19 Q. Did you receive any telephone calls from Mr. Munson in December of '84? 20 A. Yes, I did. 21 Q. And what was the occasion of those phone calls? 22 A. It was on behalf of Norman Grenier that was murdered. He called me to find out what was going on. 23 ....Q. And what was the--what was happening there? 24 A. He wanted to know--he heard of Norman's death and wanted to know what was going on, and I filled him in on the person that stopped by my house and mentioned about what he was going to do and who I thought it was. 25 Munson argues that these references should have been excluded under Federal Rule of Evidence 403, which states that [a]lthough relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence. There are two problems with this contention. First, the trial court was not asked to make such an assessment at the time the testimony was given. Second, Pierce's comments were actually elicited by defense counsel on cross-examination. Moreover, we do not see any appreciable harm in the jury's having heard both comments. There was no testimony that Munson was suspected of the murder, nor, from our reading of the transcript, could such an implication be fairly drawn. These references were too isolated and vague to have greatly heightened the jury's apprehension of the defendant and his friends as urged by Munson. They do not rise to the level of plain error.