Court decisions on what evidence is relevant and admissible

legal theories would confuse the jury. 119 H. 60 (App.), 193 P.3d 1260 (2008). Trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the probative value of the one-half and one-third of real time speed versions of the slow-motion FBI enhanced videotape was not substantially outweighed by any potential prejudice where the versions were highly probative of the sequence of events when defendant was approached by the two officers and were not cumulative because each provided a somewhat different perspective; they were not unduly prejudicial because there was sufficient foundation established as to their preparation, they contained a time counter indicating the speed at which it was playing, and the jury could compare them to the original. 120 H. 499 (App.), 210 P.3d 22 (2009). Trial court did not err in admitting seatbelt buckle patent into evidence under rules 401 and 402 and this rule for the limited purpose of showing a defect in the seatbelt where the language in the patent that "known mechanisms are complicated, and some do not positively retain the latch plate" may have evinced a defect in the seatbelt that could have resulted in inertial or inadvertent release in the case, as well as defendant's knowledge of such a defect. 121 H. 143 (App.), 214 P.3d 1133 (2009). When determining whether proffered evidence is cumulative, a trial court must weigh how much time it would take to present such evidence relative to the evidence's probative value; where seatbelt expert's testimony clearly differed from other expert's testimony, and there was no evidence that trial court attempted to ascertain how long it would take expert to testify, consider limiting the expert's testimony time, or balance whether the probative force of the testimony would be outweighed by its contribution to the length of trial, trial court erred in excluding expert's testimony on cumulative evidence grounds. 121 H. 143 (App.), 214 P.3d 1133 (2009). Primarily for reasons with regard to the time that had elapsed between the other bad acts and the charged crime and applying the test set out in this rule, the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the State to adduce at trial evidence of defendant's prior convictions under rule 404(b). 123 H. 456 (App.), 235 P.3d 1168 (2010). As the right of confrontation is not absolute, circuit court properly ruled that defendant was not entitled to introduce selected portions of witness' statement that were favorable to defendant's defense and at the same time preclude the State from introducing other portions of witness' statement that were necessary to prevent the jury from being misled; thus, circuit court did not abuse its discretion in ruling that the responsive portions of witness' statement offered by the State were admissible under rule 106 and this rule. 125 H. 462 (App.), 264 P.3d 40 (2011). There was no plain error in the admission of officer's statements regarding defendant's telephone conversation with wife while in custody to "clean the car", where statements had at least some bearing on defendant's consciousness of guilt and defendant's attempts to conceal evidence linking defendant to decedent's death, both facts at issue in the case, and there was no danger of confusing the jury as counsel for both sides noted in front of the jury that officer's testimony concerned events in 2007. 126 H. 40 (App.), 266 P.3d 448 (2011). Where defendant presented no evidence linking any third person to decedent's death and failed to show how evidence of decedent's prior sexual behavior could sufficiently link identifiable third persons to decedent's death, defendant did not demonstrate that decedent's prior sexual behavior was relevant by establishing that it had a "tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence" to defendant's defense that someone else killed the decedent "more probable or less probable"; circuit court thus properly excluded evidence of decedent's prior sexual behavior. 126 H. 40 (App.), 266 P.3d 448 (2011). Circuit court did not abuse its discretion in admitting video showing defendant masturbating for "child" where video: (1) was extremely probative of defendant’s intent to promote or facilitate the commission of one of the predicate felonies necessary to prove first degree electronic enticement of a child under §707-756; (2) provided clear evidence of defendant’s motives and desires regarding the "child" and the extreme actions defendant was willing to undertake in order to entice the "child"; and (3) was the strongest evidence of defendant’s intention to engage in sexual activity with the "child". 128 H. 328 (App.), 289 P.3d 964 (2012). Cited: 134 H. 376 (App.), 341 P.3d 1176 (2014). Mentioned: 129 H. 250 (App.), 297 P.3d 1106 (2013).