Opinion ID: 2287394
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Victim's Reputation for Violence

Text: At trial, defendant sought to testify that the victim had allegedly been questioned about a prior murder and that defendant had been told that the victim was always in trouble and was a good boy to stay away from. On objection by the State, the court excluded the proffered testimony, ruling, inter alia, that the balance to be struck under M.R.Evid. 403 required exclusion, and that in any event the evidence fell short of proving the victim's reputation for violence. We find no error. In the context of the record evidence describing the circumstances of the killing, the court could rationally conclude that any limited probative value the proffered evidence might have in support of defendant's claim of self-defense was substantially outweighed by the danger of confusing and misleading the jury. We defer to the court's exercise of its broad Rule 403 discretion. See State v. Heald, 393 A.2d 537, 542-43 (Me.1978). We need not consider the other reasons advanced by the State in support of excluding the evidence. The entry is: Judgment affirmed. All concurring.