Opinion ID: 1959985
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Balancing Probative Value and Potential Prejudice

Text: Evidence Rule 403 codifies the now-well-settled rule that even relevant evidence may be excluded if its potential for prejudice substantially outweighs its probative value. Specifically, Evidence Rule 403 provides: Except as otherwise provided by these rules or other law, relevant evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the risk of (a) undue prejudice, confusion of issues, or misleading the jury or (b) undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence. Hence, even if the other-crime evidence is relevant to prove some legitimate trial issue, the trial court must still exclude it unless, under Evidence Rule [403], its probative value outweighs its prejudicial impact. State v. Cofield, 127 N.J. 328, 336, 605 A. 2d 230 (1992); see State v. Clausell, 121 N.J. 298, 322, 580 A. 2d 221 (1990). We accord trial judges broad discretion in applying the balancing test. State v. Sands, 76 N.J. 127, 147, 386 A. 2d 378 (1978). Only where we identify a clear error of judgment do we disturb a trial court's conclusion with respect to that balancing test. State v. Koedatich, 112 N.J. 225, 313, 548 A. 2d 939 (1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 1017, 109 S.Ct. 813, 102 L.Ed. 2d 803 (1989). We find no error in the trial court's decision to admit both Detective Kukk's and Detective Saunders' testimony. Detective Kukk's testimony was highly probative concerning the issue of defendant's voluntary cooperation with police. Its prejudicial impact was de minimis at best. Considering that defendant confessed to the execution-style killing of Mr. Potcher, the fact that he stole a car, committed a few traffic violations, and yelled at his mother had very little tendency to divert the jurors' attention from their duties. Similarly, the trial court correctly admitted Detective Saunders' testimony. First, the entire confession from which Detective Saunders read had already been submitted into evidence without objection. The confession contained the exact reference to the prior burglary that Detective Saunders related in his testimony. Second, the court twice gave the jury limiting instructions regarding the proper use of the evidence. Third, given the nature of the crime to which defendant pled guilty, the reference to a prior burglary in the context of explaining how defendant came to possess a gun had little prejudicial potential. As previously stated, the evidence was probative in that it tended to establish the consistency and reliability of defendant's confession. Thus, the prejudicial potential did not substantially outweigh the probative value.