Opinion ID: 1400019
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: evidence of a past affair

Text: Lastly, the Appellant argues the trial court violated KRE 404(B) by holding that if Appellant testified about his wife's assertion that she had been unfaithful, then the Commonwealth could introduce evidence of Appellant's past affair with Amy Baumgardener. With this ruling in mind, Appellant himself disclosed the affair to the jury. We note at the outset that KRE 404(b)(1) has no application to this evidence. That Rule proscribes the introduction of evidence tending to prove a particular character trait in order to show action in conformity therewith. Evidence of immorality would not tend to prove a propensity or predisposition to commit homicide. Thus, the evidence must be tested by the general rule of relevancy, i.e., whether it has any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence. KRE 401. A fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action includes not only a fact tending to prove an element of the offense, but also a fact tending to disprove a defense. Relevancy is established by any showing of probativeness, however slight. Springer, 998 S.W.2d at 449. We further note that [a]n item of evidence, being but a single link in the chain of proof, need not prove conclusively the proposition for which it is offered. It need not even make that proposition appear more probable than not. . . . It is enough if the item could reasonably show that a fact is slightly more probable than it would appear without that evidence. Even after the probative force of the evidence is spent, the proposition for which it is offered still can seem quite improbable. Turner v. Commonwealth, 914 S.W.2d 343, 346 (Ky.1996)(quoting Robert G. Lawson, The Kentucky Evidence Law Handbook § 2.05, at 53 (3d ed.1993) and Cleary, McCormick on Evidence at 542-543 (3d ed.1984)). Accordingly, we find that evidence of the Appellant's past affair with Ms. Baumgardener is admissible because the affair speaks to his claim of EED as related to the emotional impact of his wife's disclosures about her affairs. Moreover, the affair is ascribed additional relevancy because Appellant called Ms. Baumgardener several times the night of the murder, and she went to Chicago the very next day to see Appellant. A reasonable juror could find that evidence of the affair made the existence of EED less probable than it would be without the evidence. Thus, in this context, we cannot find an abuse of discretion. For the reasons stated, we affirm. LAMBERT, C.J., and ROACH, J., concur. COOPER, J., concurs in result only. WINTERSHEIMER, J., concurs in result only because it was not error of any kind. JOHNSTONE, J., concurs by separate opinion, with GRAVES, J., joining that concurring opinion.