Opinion ID: 2257538
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Evidence of What Sproates Told his Relatives Before his Death

Text: Linda next challenges the admission into evidence of several statements made by Sproates to his relatives several weeks before his death. The statements concerned Sproates's suspicion about John's disappearance. [55] Sproates told his relatives, among other things, that: (1) Linda had brought a blood stained box from John's Bridgeville residence, and that he (Sproates) was scared and concerned about John's disappearance; [56] (2) Linda told Sproates that if he had said anything of what happened, that she would no longer talk to him and the same thing would happen to him as it did Uncle John; [57] and, that (3) Linda had called and he was going to let her in his Magnolia residence. [58] The trial judge admitted Sproates statements as hearsay exceptions under D.R.E. 803(3) and D.R.E. 804(b)(6). We review a trial judge's evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion. [59] D.R.E. 803(3) provides that a statement is not hearsay if it is: a statement of the declarant's then existing state of mind, emotion, sensation or physical condition (such as intent, plan, motive, design, mental feeling, pain and bodily health), but not including a statement of memory or belief to prove the fact remembered or believed unless it relates to the execution, revocation, identification or terms of declarant's will. Many of Sproates's statements admitted into evidence consisted of statements, attributed to Sproates, that he was afraid. The trial judge determined that: the statements as to mind as expressed to the witness are relevant, material, reflecting a mental state when made, were communicated in a natural manner, made under circumstances dispelling suspicion, and contained no suggestion of sinister motives. [60] Sproates's statements asserted his current state of mind  fear of Linda. Sproates's statements were relevant and material because they were circumstantial evidence of Linda's motive to conspire with Mellisa and Brown to commit murder. There was no evidence to suggest, nor does Linda claim, that the statements were made in an unnatural manner or unusual circumstance. Thus, we hold that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion by admitting Sproates's statements that he was afraid. Linda claims, however, that many of the statements admitted into evidence were not probative of Sproates's then existing state of mind and are therefore not admissible. That is incorrect. Although some of the Sproates's statements do not reflect his then existing state of mind, the trial judge correctly ruled that the statements were admissible under D.R.E. 804(b)(6). Rule 804(b)(6) provides that a statement offered against a party that has engaged or acquiesced in wrongdoing that was intended to, and did, procure the unavailability of the declarant as a witness is not hearsay. In applying D.R.E. 804(b)(6), the trial judge found that Linda (i) was involved in killing Sproates as a coconspirator and an aider and abetter, and (ii) Linda acted with the intent of procuring Sproates's unavailability as a potential witness at any trial concerning John's murder. The trial judge did not abuse his discretion in so finding. The evidence showed that Sproates had seen bloody boxes that Linda brought from Bridgeville to Magnolia. Linda told Sproates to keep his mouth shut or he would get what his uncle got. Sproates told his family members and Roger Layton about the boxes. Layton was an experienced police officer who also saw blood on the boxes that appeared consistent with major trauma. Linda learned from her son, Willard McCrea, that Sproates was actively involved in questioning John's disappearance and showing the bloody boxes to others. Linda then decided, with Mellisa and Brown, to kill Sproates. Linda told them that Sproates was getting to close to finding out what had actually happened to dad, and something had to be done with him. [61] Mellisa testified that she understood that meant killing Sproates. The evidence showed that Linda lured Sproates to his Magnolia residence where Brown murdered him. Based on this evidence, it was within the trial judge's discretion to find that Linda had participated in Sproates's killing in order to make him unavailable as a witness. Thus, Sproates's statements to his relatives that were both relevant and passed a D.R.E. 403 balancing analysis, were admissible as probative of Sproates's fear of impending harm under D.R.E 804(b)(6). [62]