Opinion ID: 2110800
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: The Knives

Text: Defendant next contends that the introduction of a number of knives found in his possession at the time of arrest deprived him of a fair trial. At the time of defendant's indictment in connection with Amy Schulz's death, he was serving a 15-year sentence in the Federal penal system after pleading guilty to randomly sniping at employees of the National Park Service at Glacier National Park, in Montana. Prior to the instant trial, the defense moved to exclude from evidence a number of knives seized from defendant's possession at the time of his arrest in Glacier National Park. The trial court denied the motion stating that the knives had some slight probative value and would not prejudice the defendant by their introduction into evidence. On appeal, defendant argues that the introduction of these knives resulted in substantial prejudice to defendant that outweighed any probative value. Defendant argues that the knives in this case had little or no probative value because the evidence indicated that the wound was not particularly distinctive and could have been caused by any sharp instrument with any length blade. Defendant also asserts that the knives were not probative in showing propensity and facility in the use of knives as there was no evidence that the killer possessed any special familiarity with knives. Defendant further contends that, contrary to the trial court's finding, the knives were extremely prejudicial as one was a bayonet knife while another was a long knife with a jagged edge. Defendant alleges that the introduction of these knives into evidence, along with five others, portrayed him as a dangerous individual and that the jurors may have been overpersuaded and convicted him on that basis rather than on the facts relating to the offense for which he is being tried. We do not agree with defendant. At the trial court's discretion, relevant evidence may be excluded if its prejudicial effect substantially outweighs its probative value. ( People v. Eyler (1989), 133 Ill.2d 173, 218, 139 Ill.Dec. 756, 549 N.E.2d 268.) In this context, prejudice means an undue tendency to suggest decision on an improper basis, commonly an emotional one, such as sympathy, hatred, contempt, or horror. (M. Graham, Cleary & Graham's Handbook of Illinois Evidence § 403.1, at 168 (5th ed. 1990).) A reviewing court will not disturb a trial court's determination absent an abuse of discretion. People v. Shum (1988), 117 Ill.2d 317, 353, 111 Ill.Dec. 546, 512 N.E.2d 1183. In this case, the victim suffered a wound approximately 14.22 centimeter in length. It is not unreasonable to think that such a wound could have been caused by a large sharp knife such as the ones in defendant's possession. Also, the choice of method of execution tends to indicate an affinity for such a weapon. Thus, the trial court found the knives probative of defendant's propensity towards possession and use of knives and determined that it was not so prejudicial as to warrant their exclusion. We agree with the trial court determination and hold that it did not abuse its discretion.