Court Opinion

ID: 9534133
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:37:04.2985+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:29:38.334547
License: Public Domain

HALL, Chief Justice
(dissenting):
I do not join the Court in concluding that only portions of defendant’s letter were admissible in evidence.
The sole issue at trial was defendant’s state of mind at the time the offense was committed. The trial judge duly considered the admissibility of the letter and fairly concluded that it was probative of defendant’s state of mind at the time of the murder and that it would assist the jury in determining whether defendant was guilty of second degree murder or only the lesser offense of manslaughter. It was well within the discretion of the trial judge to determine the probative value of the letter and its admissibility. I would therefore not disturb his ruling.1 Indeed, the entire context of the letter either directly or inferentially bears upon defendant’s mental state at the time of the killing.
In any event, even if it be assumed that it was error not to exclude portions of the letter from evidence, the error was harmless.
In order to constitute reversible error, the error complained of must be substantial and prejudicial, such that there is a reasonable likelihood that in its absence, there would have been a more favorable result for the defendant.2 No such likelihood exists in this case. The record contains substantial circumstantial evidence of defendant’s intention to commit murder. That evidence, coupled with the plain, unambiguous direct evidence of defendant’s state of mind contained in the first five sentences of the second paragraph of his letter, leaves no reasonable likelihood that a new trial in this case will produce a different or more favorable result for defendant.
I would affirm.

. State v. Miller, 709 P.2d 350, 353 (Utah 1985).

. State v. Tillman, 750 P.2d 546, 561 (Utah 1987).