Opinion ID: 2520495
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Specific Facts of the Brown-Love Confrontation

Text: [¶11] In the prosecutor's opening statement to the jury, he also previewed Love's expected testimony that, as Love returned to her apartment after her confrontation with Smith, Brown and another man followed her and Brown tried to force his way into her apartment. Defense counsel did not contemporaneously object to the prosecutor's preview. The prosecutor continued and then concluded his opening statement. Out of the presence of the jury, defense counsel orally moved in limine to exclude any testimony about the Brown-Love confrontation on relevancy and probative grounds under W.R.E. 404(b), 401, and 403. The trial court initially reserved ruling until after defense counsel's opening statement, but when defense counsel informed the trial court he was reserving opening statement the trial court permitted the prosecutor to respond to defense counsel's liminal motion. Contending that the Brown-Love confrontation was relevant and probative, the prosecutor argued that this evidence showed Brown's state of mind right before Brown's confrontation with Officer Hood and was probative of what's going on, it all happened within a matter of minutes. The trial court denied defense counsel's liminal motion. Defense counsel then moved for a mistrial, if Love testified about Brown's confrontation with her, claiming this evidence is so prejudicial [and has no] probative value. The trial court denied the mistrial motion. During Love's direct testimony for the prosecution, Love testified about Brown's confrontation with her.