Opinion ID: 195094
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Steven Ranfros's Testimony.

Text: David Sepulveda objected to the testimony of Steven Ranfros, a police officer who recounted that Sepulveda and several of his associates chased Ranfros when they discovered him 62 watching them from a wooded area. Sepulveda insists that Ranfros's testimony lacks any relevance. Relevance is defined in terms of probative value, see Fed. R. Evid. 401, and trial courts are afforded wide discretion in assessing the relevance and probative value of proffered evidence. See United States v. Sutton, 970 F.2d 1001, 1006 (1st Cir. 1992); United States v. Nickens, 955 F.2d 112, 125 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 113 S. Ct. 108 (1992). We will disturb an exercise of that discretion only upon a showing of manifest abuse. See United States v. Yefsky, 994 F.2d 885, 898 (1st Cir. 1993). We discern no such problem here. Ranfros's testimony could be taken to bear on guilty knowledge, and, thus, the district court had discretion to allow the jury to consider it.