A defendant is on trial for the crime of menacing due to allegedly making threatening phone calls to a woman living in his apart
ment building. The prosecution called a female witness who lived in the defendant’s last apartment building to testify that she also received a number of identical threatening phone calls while the defendant lived in her building. The defense objected to the testimony on the grounds of relevance. The prosecution responded by explaining that it plans to introduce further evidence establishing that the calls received by this witness were made by the defendant.Is the witness’s testimony admissible?No, because calls by an unidentified caller are not relevant to the case.No, because the witness’s statement cannot be admitted prior to the production of evidence establishing that the defendant made the calls to the witness.Yes, on the condition that evidence is introduced later that would permit the jury to reasonably find by a preponderance of the evidence that the caller was the defendant.Yes, on the condition that the court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the caller was the defendant.
If a witness who lived in the defendant’s last apartment building to testify that she also received a number of identical threatening phone calls while the defendant lived in her building, would be relevent in the case. On the condition that the court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the caller was the defendant.
