Opinion ID: 1722174
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Ms. Bowlin's testimony

Text: There was a motion in limine to suppress the testimony of Darlene Bowlin that Mr. and Ms. Flick had told her that they were afraid of Mr. Hodge. The motion was denied. It is contended that the statements were irrelevant, too remote in time, and unfairly prejudicial. The State argues the statements are particularly important and relevant in view of its right to prove Mr. Hodge had a motive or plan for killing his mother and stepfather and in view of the fact that the other evidence was circumstantial. The statement made to Ms. Bowlin by Mr. Flick was hardly remote in time, as it was made some three weeks before the deaths occurred. The statement by Ms. Flick had occurred some two months prior to that time. They were not hearsay evidence because they were statements by declarants of their present states of mind and thus fell within an exception to the hearsay rule. Ark. R. Evid. 803(3). With respect to the relevancy of the statements, Mr. Hodge's counsel cite a passage from a motion for rehearing quoted in a supplemental opinion accompanying the denial of rehearing in Vasquez v. State, 287 Ark. 468, 473A-474, 702 S.W.2d 411 (1986). The quoted passage was itself a quotation from McCormick on Evidence, § 296, pp. 853-854 (3d ed.1984), in which it was recognized that an expression of fear falls within the hearsay exception of Rule 803(3). It continues to point out that statements such as I am afraid of D are rare and that the usual case is D had threatened me. The treatise condemns the latter because it would probably be used by the jury to punish the defendant for a specific act. The instant case is the rare case of which the passage speaks. What we have here are mere statements of the declarants' fear of Mr. Hodge, and neither the Vasquez case nor the passage from McCormick can be said to require that we exclude the statements on the basis of their irrelevancy. Relevancy-of-evidence decisions are within the discretion of the Trial Court, Dixon v. State, 311 Ark. 613, 846 S.W.2d 170 (1993), and we cannot say that discretion was abused in this instance.