Opinion ID: 853312
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Deputy Brett Larkin's Testimony

Text: At trial, Deputy Larkin testified that he stood behind West when West, pointing at a picture of jailhouse informant James Warren, exclaimed, You see him, I'm going to kill him, too. West objected to the admission of Larkin's testimony under Indiana Rules of Evidence 403 and 404(b), and on appeal argues that the evidence was of limited relevancy and should have therefore been excluded. Specifically, West argues that if the statement had been taken seriously and were unambiguous, Larkin would have taken steps to protect Warren. Because Larkin did nothing to protect Warren, the argument goes, Larkin's testimony should not have been admitted. We agree with the State that this argument goes to the weight to be given the evidence rather than its admissibility. As West concedes, threats against potential witnesses as attempts to conceal or suppress evidence are admissible as bearing upon knowledge of guilt. Neal v. State, 659 N.E.2d 122, 124 (Ind. 1995), abrogated on other grounds by Richardson v. State, 717 N.E.2d 32, 33 (Ind.1999). Moreover, as in Barajas v. State, 627 N.E.2d 437, 439 (Ind.1994), a statement by a defendant that he would kill another too, is direct evidence of guilt. West's statement, like the defendant's in Barajas, suggested not just that he would like to kill someone, but that he had already killed one person. For this reason, the statement is relevant and admissible.