Opinion ID: 1060523
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 23

Heading: Letters from Carruthers to Maze

Text: Next, Carruthers claims that the trial court erroneously allowed into evidence two letters the appellant wrote to Jimmy Maze. In these letters, Carruthers refers to a master plan for making money. The state alleged that this plan involved the murder of Marcellos Anderson and the theft of his drugs and money. The appellant argues that the letters are too vague, have no evidentiary value, and are highly prejudicial. The admissibility of evidence is within the sound discretion of the trial court, and this Court will not interfere with that discretion absent a clear showing of abuse. See State v. Howard, 926 S.W.2d 579, 585 (Tenn.Crim.App.1996) (overruled on other grounds). Evidence is relevant if it has 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. Rule 401, Tenn.R.Evid. However, 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. Rule 403. Of course, simply because evidence is prejudicial does not mean the evidence must be excluded as a matter of law. See State v. Gentry, 881 S.W.2d 1, 6 (Tenn.Crim.App.1993), perm. to app. denied, (Tenn.1994). The Court must still determine the relevance of the evidence and weigh its probative value against any undue prejudice. The appellant argues that the letters are irrelevant because they were written too far in advance of the actual murders and do not refer to the victims or mention how the money would be made. He also suggests that the letters are improper evidence of other crimes or wrongdoings. After a jury-out hearing as to whether these letters should be admitted, the trial court made the following findings: But the proof itself, I think, goes directly toward establishing this one additional link, one additional factor in establishing, from the State's perspective, the existence of a conspiracy. It's very relevant, in my judgment. It talks about a master plan. It talks about having the support personnel lined up. It talks about having the manpower lined up. It talks about joining with me and getting with the program, in effect, and get with me when I get out. And it makes reference to the fact that he is trying to get transferred to MLRC, Mark Luttrell Reception Center, which then ties in to the testimony that Charles Smith gave, which wouldof having overheard some conversations along these line [sic] as well. You know, again, the jury may not believe any of it, and that's up to the jury. Or they may believe it all. But it all ties in, and it all ties together. The letters tie in with what Mr. Smith testified to.... And again, this is additionally why these matters need to be heard during the trial and not pretrial, because I now have the benefit of having heard Charles Smith's testimony and having heard other testimony now that Mr. Maze is now on the stand, and I can better judge how his testimony fits in with all of the other testimony. The trial judge clearly explained how these letters were relevant to the issues being tried, and having reviewed the transcript of the jury-out hearing, we are satisfied that the judge did not abuse his discretion in admitting these letters into evidence. Their probative value substantially outweighed any prejudicial effect. This issue is without merit.