Aftеr receiving a citation to appear in court on charges of sexual assault of a minor, defendant William Onorato was found semi-conscious on the floor of his bedroom with a gun and what appeared to be a suicide note. Defendant filed a motion in limine to suppress evidence of the alleged suicide note. The trial court granted the motion, concluding that the note was not relevant and that any probative value was “substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice and confusion of the issues.” The trial court denied the State’s interlocutory appeal and request for a stay. A single justice granted the State’s request *578 for a stay of the court’s ruling and permission for this appeal under VR.A.R 5.1. * The State contends that: (1) evidence of attempted suicide is relevant as a matter of law to show cоnsciousness of guilt; and (2) the judge abused his discretion in excluding the alleged suicide note. We agree that evidence of attempted suicide may be relevant to shоw consciousness of guilt, but decline to disturb the trial court’s discretionary ruling that its probative value in this case is outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice and confusion. Wе affirm.
On September 9, 1998, defendant was questioned by a Bennington police detective on charges of sexual assault of, and furnishing alcohol to, a minor. After questioning, dеfendant was issued a citation to appear in court on the following day. Defendant failed to appear. On the next day police responded to а report that defendant had been seen with a gun. When police arrived at defendant’s home, defendant’s son stated that he feared his father had shot himself, as the butt of a rifle and his father’s feet were visible through the bottom of the bedroom door. The police forced open the bolted door and found defendant passеd out on the floor. The defendant was arrested, brought into court, and arraigned later that same day. The police seized, inter alia, the rifle and what appeared to be a suicide note.
The note read, in pertinent part:
Told you I eouldent do jail time. Im 47 years old. If I got twenty years Ide be 67 years old man. I don’t plan to retire in jail and please don’t hold a grudge on guns. There is many ways to do this. . . . Im very sorry for leaving you like this but rember Im in peace with myself now. . . . I know this is hard but this is better than visiting between bars and is mutch quicker .... Sorry to leave you kids this way.
In granting defendant’s motion in H-mine to exclude evidence of his alleged suicide attempt, and his motion to suppress the alleged suicide note, the trial court’s entry order stated “fetter is not relevant and thus not admissible. Further, any probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice and confusion oNthe issues.” The trial court subsequently denied the State’s interlocutory appeal and request for a stay. This appeal followed.
The State first contends that, as a matter of law, evidence of attempted suicide is relevant to show consciousness of guilt. ‘“Relevant evidence’ means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more [or less] probable. . . ,”VR.E. 401. “With a single exception, courts have unanimоusly held that an accused’s attempt to commit suicide is probative of a consciousness of guilt and is therefore admissible.” Annotation,
Admissibility of Evidence Relating to Accused’s Attempt to Commit Suicide,
Analogous to the principle of flight evidence, courts have held that the attempt to commit suicide soon after one is
*579
charged with committing a crime demonstrates both consciousness of guilt and attempt to escape prosecution. See, e.g.,
State v. Carter,
Evidence of attempted suicide to show consciousness of guilt is similarly problеmatic. The underlying reasons motivating an attempt to take one’s life can be both numerous and highly complex, and may be even less indicative of guilt than flight evidence. Recognizing this complexity, courts have cautioned that the possible ambiguity of an accused’s suicide attempt requires a careful consideration of thе probative value such evidence offers. See, e.g.,
Mann,
In this case, the trial court ultimately based its decision to exclude evidence of the alleged suicide note on its prejudicial impact. Using the language of VR.E. 403, the court stated:
Based on my review of the letter, and the facts as [] outlined, I’m going to grant the defendant’s mоtion to preclude the introduction of the event and of the letter, based on my view that the letter itself is of questionable relevancy and any relevancy that it [hаs], would be prejudicial and outweighed by any probative effect.
The State vigorously contends that the trial court could not have performed any meaningful balаncing under VR.E. 403 because the trial court’s entry order characterized the evidence of attempted suicide as “not relevant.” We agree that the trial cоurt’s relevancy reference is erroneous. We are unable to conclude, however, that the trial court failed to weigh the probative value of the еvidence against the danger of unfair prejudice.
This Court has adopted the balancing test as articulated by V.R.E. 403: “Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its prоbative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice
....’’
See
Haynes v. Golub Corp.,
Although the trial court provided little amplification of the reasons for its decision, it is not required to state precisely why it found probative value to be substantially outweighed by prejudicial effect. See
In re S.G.,
We will not disturb the trial court’s ruling absent a showing of abuse of discretion. See
State v. Webster,
Affirmed.
Notes
Defendant does not argue on appeal that permission to appeal was improvidently granted; therefore, we do not consider that issue.