Opinion ID: 1740733
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: which was improper as rebuttal evidence.

Text: Under these assignments, the appellant contends (1) that the last day of trial during jury deliberations a statement was made by the bailiff to a juror, which was improper, and which should entitle him to a new trial. Seven (7) days later a motion for new trial was filed setting forth the incident as one reason for the granting of a new trial. The only evidence on the point was the testimony of the bailiff. A juror, returning from the men's restroom, turned to the bailiff and jokingly said, Are you going to feed me? The bailiff responded jokingly, Hell, no, I'm not going to feed you all. That part of the motion referring to the incident, was based on newly-discovered evidence. The motion was not supported by an affidavit and did not come within the requirement of Shelby v. State, 402 So.2d 338 (Miss. 1981). Bickcom v. State, 286 So.2d 823 (Miss. 1973); Edmond v. State, 312 So.2d 702 (Miss. 1975). There was no indication in the motion, or record, of any attempt to unduly influence or prejudice the jury, and the question and answer by the bailiff to the juror did not relate to any issue in the trial of the case. We are of the opinion that there is no merit to Assignment IV. Bickcom v. State, supra ; Johnson v. State, 106 Miss. 94, 63 So. 338 (1913). The appellant contends (2) that the lower court erred in admitting rebuttal testimony, which was improper as rebuttal evidence. The rebuttal testimony complained of by appellant was that of two witnesses who testified about a prior threat made by appellant against the victim. The rebuttal was in response to the testimony of appellant, when, on cross-examination, he denied ever having made a threat against the victim. This Court has established the rule that threats made by an accused, even though uncommunicated to the victim, are admissible in evidence to show malice, premeditation, or criminal intent. Steed v. State, 396 So.2d 625, 627 (Miss. 1981); Fuller v. State, 468 So.2d 68, 72 (Miss. 1985); Grooms v. State, 357 So.2d 292, 295 (Miss. 1978) [quoted in Hammond v. State, 465 So.2d 1031, 1033 (Miss. 1985)]. The appellant also claims that the threats testified to by the State's rebuttal witnesses were remote and had no evidentiary value. The threat was two to four months old. Whether or not a threat is too remote to be admissible is within the sound discretion of the trial judge. Steed v. State, supra ; Grooms v. State, supra . We are of the opinion that the threat was admissible and we reject Assignment V. The judgment of the lower court is affirmed. AFFIRMED. WALKER, C.J., HAWKINS, P.J., and DAN M. LEE, PRATHER, ROBERTSON, SULLIVAN and ANDERSON, JJ., concur. GRIFFIN, J., not participating.