State v. Grayhurst

OPINION

The defendant, Michael R. Grayhurst (defendant), appeals from his convictions on twenty-five criminal counts after a jury trial in the Superior Court. The defendant contends that his convictions should be overturned for various reasons, which are enumerated below. For the reasons indicated hence, we affirm the judgment of the Superior Court. 1

I

Facts and Travel

A therapist once commented on the problem of “Women Who Love Too Much.” 2 The defendant is a man who by his own admission loves too much; he is, in fact, a man who claims to “love the s* * * out of’ his ex-wife, Jane Grayhurst (Ms. Grayhurst). Ms. Grayhurst filed for divorce in 1994. In 1996, Ms. Grayhurst sought and was granted a no-contact order from the District Court enjoining defendant from harassing or threatening her. The divorce was finalized in 1997. In 1998, after defendant had violated the no-contact order numerous times, Ms. Gray-hurst obtained a second no-contact order from the District Court. Despite the no-contact orders, defendant, who was incarcerated at the Adult Correctional Institutions (ACI), began sending Ms. Grayhurst mail. The correspondence consisted of greeting cards, letters, pamphlets and newspaper clippings on topics such as domestic violence and alcoholism. The correspondence additionally included threats against Ms. Grayhurst and various public officials, including judges. Ms. Grayhurst eventually decided to contact authorities about the correspondence, and in November 1997 contacted the office of the Special Assistant Attorney General Bethany Macktaz and Detective John A’Vant (Det.A’Vant) 3 of the Rhode Island State Police. A mail monitor subsequently was placed on all outgoing mail that defendant sent to Ms. Grayhurst.

Additionally, in 1997, as he was leaving the courtroom after a hearing before General Magistrate John O’Brien of the Family Court relating to the sale of the Gray- *500 hursts’ marital domicile, defendant yelled at General Magistrate O’Brien, “stick it up your ass, you son of a bitch.” Upon hearing this, General Magistrate O’Brien ordered that defendant be brought back into the .courtroom. The defendant resisted being brought back into court, and, during the struggle, kicked Deputy Sheriff Richard Ploude (Sheriff Ploude), who suffered serious injuries and who testified that he has been unable to return to work since the 1997 Family Court incident. As a result of the incident, General Magistrate O’Brien found defendant in contempt of court.

Based on defendant’s continued violation of the no-contact orders, as well as a complaint that General Magistrate O’Brien lodged with the Rhode Island State Police, Det. A’Vant decided to charge defendant with violating a no-contact order and with threatening a public official. Detective A’Vant subsequently arranged to interview defendant at the ACI to inform him of the pending charges. The defendant eventually was charged with nine counts of threats to public officials, ten counts of violating a no-contact order, three counts of extortion and blackmail, one count of stalking, one count of assault on a uniformed sheriff/officer and one count of obstructing a police officer.

The Attorney General filed three infor-mations, charging defendant with the above-mentioned criminal counts, against defendant: information No. P2/00-1114A, which was filed on March 22, 2000; information No. P2/97-3209A, which was filed on September 23, 1997; and information No. P2/00-1052A, which was filed on March 16, 2000. After a jury trial in the Superior Court, defendant was convicted on twenty-five counts and sentenced to a total of thirty-five years to serve. The individual sentences defendant was given on each count are included in the chart of charges, convictions and sentences imposed, in the Appendix to this opinion.

II

Double Jeopardy

The defendant argues that (1) his conviction on count 1 of information No. P2/97-3209A for assaulting Sheriff Ploude was based on the same acts for which General Magistrate O’Brien found defendant to be in contempt of court; therefore, the assault charge should be barred on double jeopardy grounds; (2) his conviction on count 1 of information No. P2/001052A for extortion and blackmail should merge with count 21 of the same information for violation of a no-contact order because a letter defendant sent to Ms. Grayhurst formed the basis for both of these charges; and (3) his conviction on count 10 of information No. P2/00-1052A for stalking should merge with counts 12, 17, 18, 21, 23 and 26 of the same information for violations of a no-contact order because defendant’s repeated contacts with Ms. Grayhurst, by the correspondence defendant sent her, formed the basis of both charges of stalking and the violations of a no-contact order. Merger is essentially a double jeopardy argument. State v. Boudreau, 113 R.I. 497, 502, 322 A.2d 626, 629 (1974).

The defendant failed to present a double jeopardy argument before trial. Relying on Rule 12(b)(2) of the Superior Court Rules of Criminal Procedure, we have held that “the defense of double jeopardy can be raised only by a motion filed before trial and that a defendant’s failure to so move constitutes a waiver of his or her right to do so (though the court, for cause shown, may grant relief from the waiver).” State v. McGuy, 841 A.2d 1109, 1115 (R.I.2003); see also State v. Haney, 842 A.2d 1083, 1084 (R.I.2004). “[T]he *501 strong policy favoring the pretrial presentation of a double-jeopardy motion bars its use at such a late post-trial date absent some compelling reason to grant relief from the waiver sanction of Rule 12(b)(2).” McGuy, 841 A.2d at 1115. This Court perceives no such compelling reason here “to relieve defendant of having waived any double-jeopardy argument by his failure to move on this basis in a timely manner before trial.” Id.

Moreover, even if defendant had not waived his double jeopardy argument, we would not overturn any of his convictions on this ground. The prohibition against double jeopardy contained in the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution is echoed in Article 1, section 7, of the Rhode Island Constitution, which provides “[n]o person shall be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy.” The Double Jeopardy Clause “protects against a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal” or conviction. State v. Rodriguez, 822 A.2d 894, 905 n. 13 (R.I.2003) (quoting United States v. Abreu, 952 F.2d 1458, 1464 (1st Cir.1992)). It also protects against “multiple punishments for the same offense.” Id. (quoting Abreu, 952 F.2d at 1464). In determining whether an accused is in danger of being punished more than once for the same offense, “the applicable rule is that where the same act or transaction constitutes a violation of two distinct statutory provisions, the test to be applied to determine whether there are two offenses or only one, is whether each provision requires proof of a fact which the other does not.” Id. at 905 (quoting Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 304, 52 S.Ct. 180, 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932)).

We initially note that defendant never was charged with contempt, and therefore, we assume that it was civil contempt. Double jeopardy does not preclude criminal punishment after a civil sanction has been imposed. See Hudson v. United States, 522 U.S. 93, 99, 118 S.Ct. 488, 139 L.Ed.2d 450 (1997) (stating that the double jeopardy clause “protects only against the imposition of multiple criminal punishments for the same offense”). Even if this were treated as criminal contempt, however, there would be no double jeopardy violation. In this case, the crimes of criminal contempt and assault of a police officer constitute separate crimes with different elements for each. “[C]riminal contempt is punitive and designed to vindicate the dignity of the court * * *.” State v. Price, 820 A.2d 956, 969 (R.I.2003). The crime of assault of police officers and other officials is defined as the knowing and willful striking of a uniformed sheriff.” G.L.1956 § 11-5-5. Of these two crimes, only contempt requires an attack on the dignity of the court. A conviction under § 11-5-5 requires proof of an unlawful striking of a uniformed officer. Therefore, although both the contempt and the assault charges arise out of the same incident, “each offense requires proof of a fact that the other does not.” In re Malik D., 730 A.2d at 1070, 1074 (R.I.1999).

The defendant’s argument that his conviction for extortion and blackmail should merge with one of his convictions for violating a no-contact order on count 21 of information No. P2/00-1052A also fails. Pursuant to G.L.1956 § 11-42-2, “this [C]ourt has consistently stated that the crime of extortion [and blackmail] consists of two basic elements: (1) an oral or a written threat to harm a person or property, (2) accompanied by the intent to compel someone to do something against his or her will.” State v. Price, 706 A.2d 929, 933 (R.I.1998). The crime of violating a no-contact order consists of intentionally contacting a victim in contravention of such an order. See State v. Conti 672 A.2d 885, *502 886 (R.I.1996) (per curiam) (stating that the defendant’s conduct, which consisted of greeting the victim at the post office and while driving, did not violate a no-contact order because the meetings were coincidental, and implying, therefore, that a defendant’s contact with a victim must be intentional for it to violate a no-contact order). Conviction for extortion and blackmail, however, requires proof of both a threat and of intent to force someone to act against his or her will. Section 11-42-2. In addition, unique to a conviction for violating a no-contact order is the requirement that a no-contact order be in place. Thus, the two crimes require proof of separate and additional facts that the other does not.

The defendant makes a final double jeopardy argument relating to his convictions for stalking and for certain violations of no-contact orders (P2/00-1052 counts 10, 12, 13, 17, 18, 21, 23 and 26). According to defendant, the stalking count merged with the counts alleging violation of a no-contact order. We disagree.

General Laws 1956 § 11-59-2 provides: “(a) Any person who: (1) harasses another person; or (2) willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows another person with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear of bodily injury, is guilty of the crime of stalking.” Harassing is defined by § 11-59-1(2) as

“a knowing and willful course of conduct directed at a specific person with the intent to seriously alarm, annoy, or bother the person, and which serves no legitimate purpose. The course of conduct must be such as would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress, or be in fear of bodily injury.”

Section 11-59-1(1) defines course of conduct as “a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, evidencing a continuity of purpose.”

Accordingly, conviction for stalking requires proof of harassment over a period of time. As stated above, a conviction for violating a no-contact order also requires that a no-contact order be in place. Thus, stalking and violating a no-contact order each require proof of separate and additional facts that the other does not.

Ill

Rule 16

On April 3, 2000, the day before the state rested, the state presented the defense with a supplemental answer to defendant’s discovery request. According to defense counsel, the supplemental answer identified a Department of Corrections officer, Officer James Greenless (Officer Greenless) who was expected to testify that on May 19, 1998, while conducting a search of defendant’s cell, he seized a piece of paper entitled “Mike’s list,” which contained twenty names. Officer Greenless was further expected to testify that the list was defendant’s “hit list.” The supplemental answer also included a reference to an attached disciplinary report, as well as to the handwritten, one-page list.

At trial, defense counsel said that, before April 3, 2000, information relating to the “hit list” had been given to him as part of the discovery process. . According to the defense, this information consisted of a computer printout labeled “description” and stating that “on the above date and time 1 4 found a note in inmate’s cell with names of officers and brass on it. When *503 asked what it was, inmate stated, quote, ‘it’s my hit list.’ ” According to defendant, because the state possessed this computer printout, the state should have been alerted to the possibility that the “hit list” existed. Thus, defendant asserts, the state failed to fulfill its duty to exercise due diligence in locating the list.

When the state sought to introduce the list, defense counsel objected on grounds that the list was so prejudicial that if it were allowed into evidence, defendant could not receive a fair trial. 5 At least twelve of the twenty names on the “hit list” appeared, however, in an April 1998 letter defendant wrote to his wife. After confirming with defense counsel that he knew of twelve of the names on the hit list, the trial justice stated that the additional names would be redacted. The defense counsel objected, and requested that the list be “redaet[ed] in its entirety.” The trial justice asked “Okay. But that means you’re waiving your Rule 16 objection?” The defense counsel responded “I object and ask it be redacted in its entirety. So, if that means I waive the objection, then so be it.” The court answered “So you’re waiving your Rule 16 objection?” and defense counsel said “yes, yes, your Honor.”

The defendant argues that the late disclosure of this information constitutes a prejudicial violation of Rule 16 of the Superior Court Rules of Criminal Procedure. The state counters that it received the list late on Friday, March 31, 2000, and gave the list to defense counsel early on Monday, April 3, 2000, and, therefore, did not deliberately violate Rule 16.

Rule 16(a) outlines the state’s obligation to

“permit the defendant to inspect or listen to and copy or photograph any of the following items within the possession, custody, or control of the State, the existence of which is known, or by the exercise of due diligence may become known to the attorney for the State:

(1) all relevant written or recorded statements or confessions * * * made by the defendant, * * *

(6) a written summary of testimony that the State intends to use * * *

(7) a written list of the names and addresses of all persons whom the attorney for the State expects to call as witnesses at the trial in support of the State’s direct case * *

Rule 16(h) additionally provides that “[i]f, subsequent to compliance with a request for discovery * * * and prior to or during trial, a party discovers additional material previously requested which is subject to discovery or inspection under this rule, he or she shall promptly notify the other party of the existence thereof.” Finally, Rule 16(i) states that

“[i]f at any time during the course of the proceedings it is brought to the attention of the court that a party has failed to comply with this rule * * * it may * * * grant a continuance, or prohibit the party from introducing in evidence the material which [was] * * * not disclosed * * *.”

We initially note that defense counsel waived his Rule 16 objection when he responded to the trial justice’s question about whether he was waiving his Rule 16 objection by stating “yes, yes, your Hon- or.” According to defendant, defense counsel did not voluntarily waive his Rule 16 objection, but rather chose the lesser of *504 two unappealing alternatives. We need not decide this issue, however, based on our conclusion that Rule 16 was not violated.

As defense counsel noted, the computer printout merely revealed that “there was a note found which had the names of officers and brass on it.” The April 1998 letter from defendant to his wife also contained the names of public officials. Thus, the state, like defense counsel, had no reason to think that the computer printout referred to a list of names other than that which appeared in the April 1998 letter. The state asserts that it was unaware of the existence of the “hit list” until late Friday on March 31. In accordance with the requirements of Rule 16(h), the state turned the list over to defendant promptly on Monday morning.

Moreover, admission of the “hit list” into evidence did not constitute error, as the trial justice offered defense counsel several remedies for any Rule 16 violation that may have occurred. The trial justice offered to redact those names that did not appear in the April 1998 letter defendant wrote to Ms. Grayhurst, to continue the case so that defense counsel could respond to the list, and even brought up the possibility of declaring a mistrial. The defense counsel, however, turned down the trial justice’s offers to redact names or to grant a continuance, and failed to move for a mistrial.

This Court further notes that defendant was not unduly prejudiced by the late date of disclosure of the “hit list.” Evidence about defendant’s death threats to twelve of the people, all public officials except for Ms. Grayhurst, on the “hit list” already had been introduced. Hence, evidence about similar threats against several additional public officials was not likely to prejudice the defense unduly or sway or confuse the jury.

IY

Evidentiary Rulings A

The Contents of the Envelope Labeled as Exhibit Four

The defendant contends that the trial justice improperly permitted the state to introduce Exhibit No. 4. Exhibit No. 4 is an envelope and its contents that defendant sent to Ms. Grayhurst in care of her father relating to the prevention of domestic violence. According to defendant, the contents of the envelope constitute inadmissible hearsay, and, moreover, are more prejudicial than probative.

“It is well established that ‘the admissibility of evidence is within the sound discretion of the trial justice, and this Court will not interfere with the trial justice’s decision unless a clear abuse of that discretion is apparent.’” State v. Reis, 815 A.2d 57, 61 (R.I.2003) (quoting State v. Andreozzi, 798 A.2d 372, 374-75 (R.I.2002)).

1

Hearsay

Rule 801(c) of the Rhode Island Rules of Evidence defines hearsay as “a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.” “It is axiomatic that an out-of-court statement is not hearsay unless it is offered for the truth of the matter asserted.” State v. Gomes, 764 A.2d 125, 131 (R.I.2001) (quoting State v. Johnson, 667 A.2d 523, 530 (R.I.1995)). “Statements not offered to prove the truth of what they assert are not hearsay and as such do not require the assistance of an exception to the hearsay rule in order to *505 be admissible.” Id. (quoting In re Jean Marie W., 559 A.2d 625, 629 (R.I.1989)).

Here, the contents of the envelope were not offered “to prove the truth of the matter asserted.” Rule 801(c). The contents were not offered to prove the truth of the information on domestic violence; rather, they were offered as evidence of defendant’s attempt to contact his ex-wife in violation of the no-contact order. Thus, the contents of the envelope do not constitute inadmissible hearsay.

2

The Relevancy and Probative Value of the Contents of the Envelope Labeled as Exhibit No. 4

The defendant further argues that the contents of the envelope labeled as Exhibit No. 4 are both prejudicial and irrelevant. It is well settled that “[d]ecisions about the admissibility of evidence on relevancy grounds are left to the sound discretion of the trial justice; this Court will not disturb those decisions on appeal absent an abuse of discretion.” State v. Pena-Rojas, 822 A.2d 921, 924 (R.I.2008) (citing State v. Botelho, 753 A.2d 343, 350 (R.I.2000)). “Furthermore, when reviewing such decisions, we will not conclude that a trial justice abused his or her discretion as long as some grounds to support the decision appear in the record.” Id.

Rule 401 of the Rhode Island Rules of Evidence defines “relevant evidence” as “evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.” Rule 402 of the Rhode Island Rules of Evidence adds that “[a]ll relevant evidence is admissible * * *. Evidence which is not relevant is not admissible.” Finally, Rule 403 of the Rhode Island Rules of Evidence provides that “[although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” This Court has held that “Rule 403 may be invoked to exclude evidence that is prejudicial to defendant to the extent that the negative effect outweighs its probative value. Such evidence is rendered inadmissible if it is prejudicial and irrelevant.” State v. Grundy, 582 A.2d 1166, 1172 (R.I.1990).

The state had to demonstrate that defendant’s conduct was intentional to prove that he violated the no-contact order. See Conti, 672 A.2d at 886. The fact that defendant sent mail to Ms. Grayhurst demonstrates that defendant intentionally contacted her in contravention of the no-contact order. The contents of the envelope that defendant sent to Ms. Grayhurst, however, do not make it any more or less probable that defendant intentionally contacted her. Thus, the contents are irrelevant.

Although the contents of the envelope are irrelevant to determine violation of the no-contact order, they are relevant to the charges of stalking. Section 11-59-1(2) states that the crime of stalking occurs when a person harasses another person by following “a knowing and willful course of conduct * * * with the intent to seriously alarm, annoy, or bother the person * * * such as would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress, or be in fear of bodily injury.”

Given defendant and Ms. Grayhurst’s tumultuous history, the contents of the envelope relating to prevention of domestic violence would upset Ms. Grayhurst and are, therefore, relevant to show that defendant intended to “seriously alarm, annoy *506 or bother” her, § 11-59-1(2), in contravention of § 11-59-2. In addition, the probative value of this evidence is not “substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.” R.I.R.Evid. 403. Given the numerous other examples of such correspondence admitted into evidence, it is highly unlikely that this example would unduly prejudice defendant or mislead or confuse the jury.

3

Prior Bad Acts

The defendant argues the trial justice improperly permitted the introduction as exhibits of two letters he wrote to Ms. Grayhurst, which include threats to Ms. Grayhurst’s life and safety, because they constituted inadmissible evidence of prior bad acts. The defendant additionally contends that the testimony is both irrelevant and more prejudicial than probative. Rule 404(b) of the Rhode Island Rules of Evidence provides that

“[ejvidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show that the person acted in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake or accident * * *.”

This court previously has held that “evidence of past, uncharged criminal behavior of an accused is generally inadmissible in a criminal trial to prove a defendant’s propensity to commit the crime charged.” Reis, 815 A.2d at 61 (quoting State v. Pratt, 641 A.2d 732, 742 (R.I.1994)). This type of evidence normally is inadmissible because the “prejudicial effect of such evidence has been traditionally viewed as outweighing its probative value by acting to predispose jurors to believe a defendant’s guilt.” Id. In addition, if evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or bad acts is admitted, then there is a “risk that jurors might convict a defendant for a crime other than the one being charged.” Id. at 62.

“Rule 404(b) represents an exception to the above-stated general rule.” Reis, 815 A.2d at 62. The rule permits evidence of prior bad acts when they are “ ‘interwoven’ with the offense charged.” Id. (quoting Pratt, 641 A.2d at 742). In addition, as provided in Rule 404(b), such evidence is admissible to show a defendant’s “motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake or accident.” Because of the risks involved in introducing evidence of prior bad acts, “‘the trial justice must carefully weigh the probative value of the evidence against the danger of unfair prejudice * * *.’ ” Reis, 815 A.2d at 62. “If the trial justice determines that the probative value does outweigh the prejudicial effect, he should offer ‘a specific instruction [to the jury] as to the limited purpose for which the evidence is being introduced.’ ” Id. (quoting Pratt, 641 A.2d at 742).

The defendant’s implicit reliance on the general rule that “past, uncharged criminal behavior” is inadmissible is misplaced. Id. at 61. The contents of the letters defendant sent to Ms. Grayhurst do not constitute evidence of other crimes. Instead, the contents of the letters were introduced as evidence that defendant committed one of the crimes with which he was charged, which was violation of a no-contact order.

Moreover, although the contents of the envelopes are not, as discussed above, relevant to show violation of the no-contact order, any error on the part of the trial justice in admitting the letters is harmless error. As stated earlier, given the numerous other examples of such eorrespon- *507 dence admitted into evidence, it is highly unlikely that additional letters would unduly prejudice defendant or mislead or confuse the jury.

B

Testimony of General Magistrate O’Brien, Justice Indeglia, Judge Erickson, Sheriff Ploude and Detective A’Vant

1

The Testimony of General Magistrate O’Brien

General Magistrate O’Brien testified at trial that defendant came before him in 1997 for a hearing in the Family Court. General Magistrate O’Brien then testified about his personal observations of defendant’s courtroom outburst. General Magistrate O’Brien also testified that “one of the deputy sheriffs was injured and to my belief remains out of work from two years after whatever it was.” The state then asked General Magistrate O’Brien whether the injured and out-of-work deputy sheriff was the sheriff defendant kicked during his courtroom altercation. 6 General Magistrate O’Brien responded that he did not know whether the injured and out-of-work sheriff and the sheriff defendant kicked were the same person. Next, General Magistrate O’Brien testified that, after the altercation, he found defendant to be in contempt of court. The state asked General Magistrate O’Brien to explain contempt to the jury, and defense counsel objected on grounds that the issue was irrelevant. The trial justice nevertheless allowed the testimony, and General Magistrate O’Brien explained contempt as “a violation of an order. Generally, if someone — if a judge said do this, that and thus and somebody did not do it that is contempt. In this instance * * * I deemed what was taking place to be a disruption.”

i

The Relevance of the Testimony of General Magistrate O’Brien

According to defendant, General Magistrate O’Brien’s testimony on the deputy sheriffs inability to work was both prejudicial and irrelevant to any of the charges against defendant. Moreover, defendant asserts that General Magistrate O’Brien’s testimony on contempt amounted to an opinion about defendant’s guilt on the charges of assaulting and of obstructing public officials. Although the testimony at issue was certainly prejudicial, “[a]ll of the evidence that tends to prove that defendant is guilty of a crime might be said to be prejudicial.” State v. Lemon, 497 A.2d 713, 720 (R.I.1985). Here, “[b]odily injury sustained in the performance of duty is an essential element” in proving assault on a public official. State v. Pombo, 110 R.I. 133, 136, 290 A.2d 855, 856 (1972). Therefore, the fact that the deputy sheriff was unable to work for two years after the assault is highly probative of the fact that he did suffer bodily injuries from the assault. As such, the probative value of General Magistrate O’Brien’s testimony on this point is not “substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice,” Rule 403, and did not require exclusion of such evidence.

ii

General Magistrate O’Brien’s Testimony did not Constitute Bolstering

The defendant also argues that General Magistrate O’Brien’s testimony constituted impermissible bolstering of Sheriff Ploude’s trial testimony that he was injured during the 1997 altercation *508 ■with defendant in the Family Court and had been unable to return to work. “ ‘Bolstering’ or Vouching’ occurs when one witness ‘offers an opinion regarding the truthfulness or accuracy of another witnesses] testimony.’” State v. Lassiter, 836 A.2d 1096, 1107 (R.I.2003) (quoting State v. Webber, 716 A.2d 738, 742 (R.I.1998)). “Impermissible bolstering may occur even if the witness does not literally state an opinion concerning the credibility of another witness’s testimony.” Id. (citing Webber, 716 A.2d at 742). “If one witness’s testimony has the same ‘substantive import’ as if it addressed another witness’s credibility, it is inadmissible.” Id.

General Magistrate O’Brien’s testimony consisted of his retelling of defendant’s 1997 courtroom altercation, which he personally observed, and of his decision to hold defendant in contempt after that altercation. During his 1997 courtroom outburst, defendant both assaulted a sheriff and threatened General Magistrate O’Brien. Because the assault and threats formed the basis of the charges before the jury of obstructing a uniformed sheriff/officer, obstructing a police officer, and of one count of threatening a public official, this testimony is probative of those charges. Moreover, in testifying about these points, General Magistrate O’Brien neither offered his opinion about the truthfulness of Sheriff Ploude’s testimony, nor gave testimony that had the same “ ‘substantive import’ as if it addressed * * * [Sheriff Ploude’s] credibility.” Lassiter, 836 A.2d at 1107 (quoting Webber, 716 A.2d at 742). Thus, the trial justice did not abuse his discretion in allowing this testimony.

iii

General Magistrate O’Brien’s Testimony did not Improperly Introduce Evidence of Defendant’s Prior Bad Acts

The defense additionally objected to General Magistrate O’Brien’s testimony about several occasions when defendant had angry outbursts in court. The defendant asserts that this testimony constituted inadmissible evidence of prior bad acts. The defendant further contends that the testimony was both irrelevant and more prejudicial than probative.

The defendant was charged with threatening General Magistrate O’Brien, a public official, with death as a result of the lawful performance of his public duties. One of the outbursts. that General Magistrate O’Brien described, namely defendant’s angry comments to the sheriff assigned to General Magistrate O’Brien, Roy Viera (Sheriff Viera), that he planned to kill General Magistrate O’Brien, formed the basis of these charges. The outburst did, however, form the factual background to the charges against defendant that he threatened public officials. The defendant’s courtroom outbursts before General Magistrate O’Brien, even if they were not spoken directly to General Magistrate O’Brien, were a part of the events leading up to defendant’s eventual threats against General Magistrate O’Brien. The jurors were entitled to hear this factual background of the circumstances surrounding defendant’s threats against General Magistrate O’Brien. See State v. Garcia, 743 A.2d 1038, 1051 (R.I.2000) (stating that a defendant’s statements to his accomplice about a prior arson were admissible at trial as “part of the factual background concerning how and why [the] crime came to be committed”).

Moreover, the testimony is both relevant and is more probative than prejudicial. As important factual background, General Magistrate O’Brien’s testimony is relevant. Also, the testimony was not the jurors’ only source of information about defendant’s courtroom outbursts; Sheriff *509 Ploude also testified about one of the outbursts. Thus, defendant is not prejudiced by the admission of General Magistrate O’Brien’s testimony on this same event.

2

The Testimony of Justice Indeglia and Judge Erickson

i

Prior Bad Acts

The defense also objected to a portion of the testimony of Superior Court Justice Gilbert Indeglia (Justice Indeglia). 7 Justice Indeglia’s testimony concerned two probation violation hearings for defendant: one in 1996 before Justice Indeglia and an earlier violation hearing before a different judge. The defendant asserts that the above-mentioned testimony constituted inadmissible evidence of prior bad acts. The defendant additionally contends that the testimony is both irrelevant and more prejudicial than probative. As described above, the fact that defendant appeared before Justice Indeglia is part of the events leading up to defendant’s threats to Indeglia; thus, the jurors were entitled to hear about this factual background. See Garcia, 743 A.2d at 1051.

ii

Hearsay

The defendant contends that portions of the testimony given at trial by Det. A’Vant, Justice Indeglia, and Rhode Island District Court Judge Stephen Erickson (Judge Erickson) constitute inadmissible hearsay. The state asked Justice Indeglia whether he ever had received a letter from the ACI. The defense objected on hearsay grounds, but the trial justice allowed the testimony to continue. Justice Indeglia responded that he had received such a letter, “indicating that [his] name was on a list with others where threats have been made by [defendant] against [him] as well as others.” Justice Indeg-lia’s recounting of the contents of the letter from the ACI was offered for its truth, which was that defendant had, in fact, made threats against Justice Indéglia.

We need not consider whether Justice Indeglia’s testimony satisfied any exceptions to the prohibition against hearsay because any error in admitting the testimony is harmless. The threats to his life that Justice Indeglia described were admitted into evidence elsewhere. The defendant’s 1998 letter to Ms. Grayhurst, in which he speaks of the “thirteen assholes I have to take care of when I get out,” and gives a list of names, including Justice Indeglia and Judge Erickson, was read to the jury and placed into evidence absent objection. Thus, the admission of this testimony did not prejudice defendant.

Finally, the state asked Judge Erickson whether at some point he became aware that defendant had made a threat against him. After defense objected on hearsay grounds, the trial justice allowed Judge Erickson to answer “yes” and then precluded the state from continuing to ask questions on that point. Judge Erickson’s statement, however, is not hearsay. The state did not ask Judge Erickson to recount how he learned of defendant’s threat, which may have involved statements made by someone other than Erickson. Instead, the state merely asked Judge Erickson whether he was aware of any threats. Although Judge Erickson’s answer to this question does imply that someone at some point told him of defendant’s threat, Judge Erickson’s answer *510 does not repeat any such statements or even confirm that such statements occurred.

iii

Bolstering

The defendant further argues that the introduction of Justice Indeglia’s and of Judge Erickson’s testimony constituted inappropriate bolstering of the credibility of defendant’s threats. Both Justice Indeglia and Judge Erickson testified that they had learned of defendant’s threats against them, and that they were very concerned about those threats. According to defendant, because of the high official status of both Justice Indeglia and Judge Erickson, the testimony presented by each judge about defendant’s threats made those threats appear to be serious, rather than merely the rantings and ravings of a troubled man. Bolstering occurs when one witness gives an opinion about the “credibility of another witness’s testimony.” Lassiter, 836 A.2d at 1107. However, “[o]pinion evidence that tends to corroborate another witness’s testimony or substantiate a disputed fact is admissible in limited circumstances.”