Opinion ID: 1726352
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: the lower court erred in permitting the state to introduce testimony of a solicitation on the part of appellant to procure the murder of his wife as said incident was too remote in time to the death of the deceased to be of probative or evidentiary value.

Text: Appellant objected to the testimony of the Troxals that he solicited James Troxal to kill Mrs. Hammond on account of the insurance. The basis for the objection was that the solicitation occurred ten (10) months prior to Mrs. Hammond's death and that it was remote, irrelevant and unduly prejudicial. The Court has said that in determining whether or not a threat may be too remote to be admissible, the trial court exercises its discretion in deciding whether such evidence should be admitted. In Grooms v. Pace, 357 So.2d 292 (Miss. 1978), discussing this question relating to threats, the Court said: We have held in several cases that threats made by an accused to kill the deceased uncommunicated to the deceased are admissible in evidence. These threats show malice, premeditation or criminal intent. Herron v. State, Miss., 287 So.2d 759, cert. denied 417 U.S. 972, 94 S.Ct. 3179, 41 L.Ed.2d 1144 (1974); Ladner v. State, 197 So.2d 257 (Miss. 1967); Lambert v. State, 171 Miss. 474, 158 So. 139 (1934); Myers v. State, 167 Miss. 76, 147 So. 308 (1933). We further have held that should the alleged threat be so remote as to be of no evidentiary value it should not be admissible. Myers v. State, supra. In Sharplin v. State, 330 So.2d 591 (Miss. 1976), we held that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in allowing evidence of a conditional threat made by the accused two months before the killing of the deceased. Whether or not a threat is too remote to be admissible is a question addressed to the sound discretion of the trial judge. We hold that the lower court was completely within its discretion in holding that the alleged threat made in the presence of witness Crystal Smith was admissible. 357 So.2d at 295-296. We are of the opinion that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the threats in evidence. 357 So.2d at 295-296. In Bennefield v. State, 202 So.2d 48 (Ala. 1966), Bennefield was convicted for murder in the second degree of his wife. The Court held that evidence of threats and assaults on deceased by appellant committed several years prior to the commission of the homicide were not too remote to be considered by the jury. The Court said: The lapse of time does not render evidence of threats inadmissible. Rector v. State, 11 Ala.App. 333, 66 So. 857 (threat made two years prior to killing); Pulliam v. State, 88 Ala. 1, 6 So. 839; Shelton v. State, 217 Ala. 465, 117 So. 8 (for the last two or three years); Redd v. State, 68 Ala. 492 (two years); Blue v. State, 246 Ala. 73, 19 So.2d 11 (several years prior to the killing). In Patterson v. State, 243 Ala. 21, 8 So.2d 268, defendant had been convicted of murder in the first degree for the death of his wife. Over objection and for the purpose of showing motive, the State was allowed to prove that more than a year and a half before the death of his wife, defendant had been convicted for assaulting deceased and sentenced to the penitentiary for 422 days. The court held that conviction and incarceration for another and former crime is admissible if it reasonably tends to show a motive for the crime for which the accused is on trial. Other courts have admitted evidence of assault, violence, etc., upon deceased by the accused, even though there had been a considerable lapse of time between these acts and the homicide. 202 So.2d at 51. See the decisions of other courts in People v. Bolton, 215 Cal. 12, 8 P.2d 116 (1932) [one and one-half years]; Koerner v. State, 98 Ind. 7 (1884) [four years]; Sayres v. Commonwealth, 88 Pa. 291 (1879) [two years]. We distinguish the facts of the case sub judice from those in the usual homicide case where the question of remote threats arise. Here, the appellant was charged with the murder of his wife rather than some other individual. The solicitation of Troxal was more a plan and scheme than a threat. Relevance of that testimony was borne out by the testimony of insurance agents that he inquired about the status of the insurance policies and whether or not they had double indemnity clauses prior to the homicide. The appellant testified that his wife accidentally drowned. We are of the opinion that the lower court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the testimony of the Troxals in holding that the solicitation of Troxal by appellant was not too remote in time.