State v. Wargo
255 Conn. 113 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An out-of-court statement by a homicide victim expressing fear of the defendant and an intent to end their relationship is admissible as non-hearsay to circumstantially prove the victim's state of mind. This state of mind is relevant to establishing the defendant's motive, especially when other independent evidence corroborates the deterioration of the relationship.
Facts:
- Lance Wargo and his wife, Wendy Wargo, were in a deteriorating marriage, and Wendy had served Lance with divorce papers on November 1, 1994.
- Following the service of divorce papers, Lance Wargo told a friend he would 'rather see [his wife and children] dead than have her raise the kids and corrupt them.'
- Wargo admitted to another friend, Irene Ellis, that he had a recent 'big blow out' with Wendy, during which he slammed her against a wall and threatened to 'beat the shit out of her and kill her.'
- Wargo also told the victim’s mother that he would make the victim's life a 'living hell' if she proceeded with the divorce.
- On November 16, 1994, Wendy Wargo told Irene Ellis that she was resolved to proceed with the divorce and expressed her belief that Lance Wargo would have killed her during the earlier altercation if their daughter had not awoken.
- On November 19, 1994, a fire broke out at the Wargo home. Lance Wargo and the two children escaped, but Wendy Wargo's body was found in the most heavily burned area of the house.
- A fire investigation concluded the fire was intentionally set using an accelerant, and the medical examiner determined that Wendy Wargo was dead before the fire started, though the precise cause of death could not be determined due to the body's condition.
- Police discovered a notebook in Wargo's handwriting containing words such as 'acetone,' 'alcohol clorox,' 'dry run,' 'rope kds drs,' and 'rid of stuff.'
Procedural Posture:
- A jury in the Connecticut Superior Court (trial court) found the defendant, Lance Wargo, guilty of murder, arson, tampering with evidence, and risk of injury to a child.
- The trial court rendered judgment in accordance with the jury's verdict and sentenced Wargo to a fifty-year prison term.
- Wargo, as the appellant, appealed the judgment to the Appellate Court of Connecticut.
- The Appellate Court affirmed the trial court's judgment.
- The Supreme Court of Connecticut granted Wargo's petition for certification to review three specific evidentiary issues raised in the appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a murder victim's out-of-court statement expressing fear of the defendant and a final decision to seek a divorce constitute admissible non-hearsay evidence to prove the defendant's motive, when offered to show the victim's state of mind and the deterioration of the marital relationship?
Opinions:
Majority - Palmer, J.
Yes, a murder victim's out-of-court statement expressing fear of the defendant and a final decision to seek a divorce constitutes admissible non-hearsay evidence to prove the defendant's motive. The statements were not offered for the truth of the matter asserted (that the defendant would have killed her), but to illustrate circumstantially the victim's then-present state of mind. The victim's state of mind—her fear and her resolve to end the marriage—was relevant to establish the defendant's motive, as it demonstrated the extent to which the marriage had broken down, a circumstance from which the jury could infer motive. This case is distinguishable from precedents like State v. Duntz, where a victim's fear was the sole evidence of an antagonistic relationship. Here, substantial independent evidence from multiple witnesses corroborated the defendant's threats, hostility, and unwillingness to accept the divorce. The trial court properly concluded that the probative value of this evidence in establishing motive outweighed its potential for unfair prejudice, especially since a limiting instruction was given to the jury.
Analysis:
This decision refines the application of the 'state of mind' exception to the hearsay rule in homicide cases, clarifying when a victim's statements of fear are admissible. It establishes that such statements can be highly relevant to proving motive, but their admissibility often hinges on the existence of independent, corroborating evidence of the defendant's hostility or the relationship's deterioration. The case distinguishes between using a statement to prove its content (impermissible hearsay) and using it to show the declarant's mental state (permissible non-hearsay). This holding provides a crucial precedent for prosecutors to introduce powerful evidence of motive while also setting a boundary that prevents convictions based solely on a victim's subjective, uncorroborated fears.
Unlock the full brief for State v. Wargo