The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Police officers had established surveillance at a meat plant because of unexplained disappearances of meat. D was observed entering the plant, returning to his car, re-entering the plant, and finally returning to his car once again sometime later. A spot check revealed five pork tenderloins missing. Upon arrest, D was found to have five pork tenderloins in his coat pocket. D testified that he did not take the pork loins, that he did not know how they got in his car, but that they got in his pocket because he picked them up off the floor of the car thinking they were a package of meat he had purchased elsewhere. D attempted to introduce testimony that he had been threatened by one Carver. Carver had expressly warned D that he was going to see that D lost his job. D offered the possibility that the pork loins had been planted in D's car. It was excluded in that it was not relevant (Rule 402) and the danger of confusing the jury outweighed the probative value of the evidence. (Rule 403). D appealed his conviction.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.