Opinion ID: 2632147
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Evidence of Threat

Text: Mazurek further claims reversible error in the admission of testimony that he threatened a witness in the hallway after the witness testified against him. Rulings on the admissibility of evidence are within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed on appeal absent a showing of a clear abuse of discretion. English, 982 P.2d at 143. We will not overturn a trial court's discretionary decision unless the court acted in a manner exceeding the bounds of reason and could not rationally conclude as it did. Id. The trial court, over Mazurek's objection, allowed Scheschi to return to the witness stand after a break in the trial. Scheschi testified that Mazurek passed by him in the hallway and said, It's your ass. At trial and on appeal, Mazurek claims the testimony was prejudicial and not relevant to the proceeding. W.R.E. 401 defines relevant evidence as: evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence. However, even when evidence is relevant, the trial court may exclude relevant evidence 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. W.R.E. 403. The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it determined if there's threats, we ought to know about it. The testimony was relevant to Mazurek's consciousness of guilt. See e.g., King v. State, 780 P.2d 943, 962 (Wyo.1989) (jury instruction allowing jury to consider threat made by defendant to a witness as evidence of his guilt is well-settled law); Opie v. State, 389 P.2d 684, 690 (Wyo. 1964) (threat against a third person is admissible when circumstances are shown which indicate some relation or connection between the crime at issue and the third party threatened). When reviewing evidence for admissibility under W.R.E. 403, the trial court must balance the potential for unfair prejudice against the probative value of evidence. Trujillo v. State, 953 P.2d 1182, 1186 (Wyo. 1998) (citing McDermott v. State, 897 P.2d 1295, 1298 (Wyo.1995)). The testimony did not distract the jury from the question of whether Mazurek committed the charged crime, id., and it was neither unduly inflammatory nor introduced solely to inflame the jury. The trial court did not err when it allowed Scheschi to testify concerning the comment Mazurek made to him in the hallway. Therefore, we affirm the trial court's decision to allow the testimony at trial.