Court Opinion

ID: 9711188
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 04:26:08.63563+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:02.707439
License: Public Domain

LARSEN, Justice,
dissenting.
I dissent.
At best, the proffered testimony of appellant’s wife could have only corroborated testimony by appellant that as a result of an incident that occurred thirty-five days prior to the shooting, appellant was in a state of fear at the time of the shooting. However, appellant never testified that the aforementioned prior incident placed appellant in fear. Instead, appellant testified that the victim’s “shiny object” placed him in fear:
Q Now, Mr. Scott, at any time when you were confronted with this man with the shiny object in his hand, did you intend to shoot him?
A No.
Q Did you have any intention to take a life here?
A No, sir, I did not.
Q What was your intention with regard to that man?
A All I wanted that man to do was get away from my home and leave my family alone, and as it turned out, all I wanted him not to do was to hurt me.
Q And you were in fear?
A Yes, I was.
Q And that object in this individual’s hand put you in fear, is that correcft
*57A Yes, it did. (Emphasis added)
Thus, the proffered testimony of appellant’s wife would have been irrelevant and therefore, the trial court did not err in refusing to admit said testimony.