State of New Hampshire v. Volodymyr Zhukovskyy (Case Closed)

THE STA TE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

006$, SS. SUPERIOR COURT No. 214-201 9-CR-00078 State of New Hampshire v.

Volodymyr Zhukovskyy

ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE PORTIONS OF

Two (Index #335), in which he seeks to exclude from evidence certain portions of his June 24. 2019 interview with police detectives. He argues that the evidence has “little if any relevance” and that any probative value it may have is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. (Def.’s Mot. 1m 6, 15.) The State objects in part. (Index #347). It “agrees to redact the limited portion of the interview identified by the defendant that includes his statements about obtaining a lawyer and the potential penalty he faces for his role in the crash that is the subject of this case." (State’s Obj. 1m 1—2.) lt othenNise objects, contending that the remaining evidence is relevant and probative and that its probative value is not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.

Evidence is relevant if “it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence... and... the fact is of consequence in determining the action." N.H. R. Ev. 401. Relevant evidence may be excluded “if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of,” among other things, “unfair prejudice.” N.H. R. Ev. 403. on Document Sent to Parties Clerk's Notice of Decision 05/02/2022 Evidenceisunfairlyprejudicialifitsprimarypurposeoreffectistoappealtoajury’ssympathies,arouseitssenseofhorror,provokeitsinstincttopunish,ortriggerothermainspringsofhumanactionthatmaycauseajurytobaseitsdecisiononsomethingotherthantheestablishedpropositionsinthecase.Unfairprejudiceisnot,ofcourse,ameredetrimenttoadefendantfromthetendencyoftheevidencetoprovehisguilt,inwhichsenseallevidenceofferedbytheprosecutionismeanttobeprejudicial.Rather,theprejudicerequiredtopredicatereversibleerrorisanunduetendencytoinduceadecisionagainstthedefendantonsomeimproperbasis,commonlyonethatisemotionallycharged.Statev.Cassavaugh,161N.H.90,98(2010)(quotingStatev.Yates,152N.H.245,249-50(2005)).

Withtheseprinciplesinmind,theCourtfindsthattheremainingevidenceis relevantforthereasonsthattheStatearticulates(State’sObj.1m12—20),andthatits significantprobativevalueisnotsubstantiallyoutweighedbythedangerofunfair prejudice.Accordingly,theCourtGRANTSthedefendant’sMotionastothoseportions oftheinterviewconcerninghisstatementsaboutobtaininganattorneyandthepotential penaltiesforthechargedconductandotherwiseDENIESthedefendant’sMotion.

SoOrdered. (’5—\Date:S/ZIZZé/%Z_~:)Hon.PeterH.BornsteinPresidingJustice