Opinion ID: 2431372
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Admissibility of Rat Poison

Text: Weaver moved to suppress the bottle of rat poison found hidden in a storage area at the Cimarron Inn seven weeks after the crime on the basis that it was irrelevant. She now appeals the trial court's ruling on her motion. Evidence is relevant, under our rule and caselaw, if it has any tendency to make the existence of a fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more or less probable. Ark.R.Evid. 401; Walker v. State, 301 Ark. 218, 783 S.W.2d 44 (1990). The trial court has wide discretion on rulings concerning the admissibility of evidence, and that decision will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion. Monk v. State, 320 Ark. 189, 895 S.W.2d 904 (1995); Grigsby v. State, 260 Ark. 499, 542 S.W.2d 275 (1976). The evidence, to reiterate, was that rat poison was found at the Cimarron Inn, Weaver's former place of employment, close to an area where she had once hidden her sister's purse. Weaver worked at the inn from December 11, 1992, to January 10, 1993. Allen was hospitalized on December 19, 1992. The discovered rat poison contained arsenic. The poison was not found where other chemicals were stored by the inn and was unlike other poison used by the inn to control rats and mice. It was also shown that the poison was purchased near the time when Jeannie Allen began exhibiting symptoms of arsenic poisoning. The evidence, in toto, supports an inference that Weaver purchased the poison, used it to murder Allen, and hid it at her place of employment. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the bottle of rat poison into evidence for the jury to weigh. See Miller v. State, 280 Ark. 551, 660 S.W.2d 163 (1983). The record in this case has been reviewed for other reversible error in accordance with Supreme Court Rule 4-3(h), and none has been found. Affirmed.