ÿWPCº* ”4ðòÔ?©umvêÁ:%WÉ"€aY›Qßê²vë÷/m‹sN„˜ª©ñEUÌ«r£täJªn4H”o”{(6‹R¾´F}˜'øfyvŽejp¼.í¡=cB-I=YAÁ„ï\£˜jiË´ªÏ6µt%ǘªUd¿7@AFO:Þ‰î¾ ì,åËô'ü ü\ÜóEwVGCÁËKy\ÔüÀ*~iMoÂI’jpÓ¼@8…´S3F<«Œç¥s‹ö{9_¦ΛùèóÙßÈ í!TO× åÙè õEGJ@¦%îØ•Tôˆˆ¥W¥šO0œøŒKf‘tKæß«*×Ê!, RY^?F¬&+¡>ç$ILÏ~™¼7l'>¼­\Ê™ Ðm Èœ42³4ªó?¦û h¨j¾ZoüÎÃÒ”L ?Ô™;þ³¦ÄÓ­²’gn&l<›|½'¿]£wâ¯ö&¨ (lÐ sd‚^)}fÚ? µ;Syð/Ú;hÙŠ§-[s¤¡ÙÑ ×µœ(Z´C¡ë­Ì4%ˆ ¡eå ÆÜDóÛå œÛ $êHáZÿûÿ'Taézñ˜E{-]ÔŽNPŒŒÔõk™Íáöø äpˆ­L•(#!0UNQ %Ÿ 0(¥w@Í4 !0 m2NIKS 0 li 0DÕ E · ûÒ^ ÍUNÙ;'béj…SvØNUNd²UNÈ#È#q$‡%‡%‡%‡%‡%‡%‡%‡% B*˜HP LaserJet 5MP,ð,,,,,ð0(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ ;D!;";#;%;+;,;-;.;/;lzÁ(3|x/;ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ  Ý ƒ üÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý›Ô_Ô€Ô‡Š0†‹XXÔòòMiranda€v.€Arizonaóó,€384€U.S.€436;€86€S.€Ct.€1602;€16€L.€Ed.€2d€694Ô#†XD%X‹Š0†U#Ô€(1966)Ô‡Š0†‹XXD%ÔÐ ° Ð(allowing€defendant€the€right€to€be€warned€of€several€rights).€€Suspects€usually€hear€theÏfollowing€from€government€authorities:ÌÓ  ÓÓ XÓÓ XÓð ð1.€You€have€the€right€to€remain€silent,ÌÌð ð2.€Anything€you€say€can€and€will€be€used€against€you€in€a€court€of€law,ÌÌð ð3.€You€have€the€right€to€talk€to€a€lawyer€and€have€him€present€with€you€whileÏbeing€questioned,ÌÌð ð4.€If€you€cannot€afford€to€hire€a€lawyer€one€will€be€appointed€to€represent€youÏbefore€any€questioning,ÌÌð ð5.€You€may€also€waive€the€right€to€counsel€and€your€right€to€remain€silentÏand€you€may€answer€any€question€or€make€any€statement€you€wish.€If€youÏdecide€to€answer€questions€you€may€stop€answering€questions€at€any€time,€toÏconsult€with€an€attorney,ÌÌð ð6.€Do€you€understand€what€I€have€told€you?ððÔ#†XD%X‹Š0†æ#ÔÔ‡Š0†‹XXD%ÔÐ °  ÐÓ›ÓÓ X§ÓÓ XµÓÓ XÓÓ XÓÔ#†XD%X‹Š0†a#Ô((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó ­Ý ƒ üÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý›Ô_Ô€Ô€Š°Ø‹XXÔPrior€to€the€petitionerððs€arrest€the€victimððs€brother,€Mr.€Johnson,€posted€aÐ ° Ð$10,000€reward€for€information€leading€to€the€murderer.€€The€State€elicited€testimonyÏfrom€Mr.€Johnson€that,€upon€learning€of€the€reward,€the€petitioner€stated,€ð ðthe€murderÏwill€never€be€solved.ðð€€The€State€also€offered€testimony€from€another€witness€that€theÏpetitioner€told€him€not€to€cooperate€with€the€police€because€ð ðthey€were€not€going€to€findÏout€who€did€it.ðð€€The€State€argued€to€the€jury€that€these€facts€also€exhibited€aÏconsciousness€of€guilt. ñÝ ƒ üÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý›Ô_ÔÔ‡ŠP‡‹XXÔ€The€issues€in€that€appeal€were€unrelated€to€the€issues€in€the€case€òòsubóó€òòjudiceóó.Ô#†X\X‹ŠP‡T#Ô1¹n)×(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular 1Ñ#€Xÿÿd#ÑØØ ß›Ô_Ôà  àòòÔ‡Š°Ø‹hXÔ5óó€Ô#†XD%X‹Š°Ø #ÔÔ‡Š°Ø‹XXD%ÔMd.€Rule€5„403€took€effect€July€1,€1994.€€The€Rules€Order€dated€December€15,Ð ° Ð1993,€however,€provided€that€ð ðany€trial€or€hearing€commenced€prior€to€July€1,€1994€shallÏcontinue€to€be€governed€by€the€law€and€Rules€in€effect€on€June€30,€1994,€and€.€.€.€noÏevidence€shall€be€admitted€against€a€defendant€in€a€criminal€action€in€proof€of€a€crimeÏcommitted€prior€to€July€1,€1994,€unless€that€evidence€would€have€been€admissible€underÏthe€law€and€Rules€in€effect€on€June€30,€1994.ðð€€Because€the€charged€crime€occurred€inÏ1986,€we€note€that€Md.€Rule€5„403€itself€does€not€apply€in€the€case€òòsubóó€òòjudiceóó.€€TheÐ °  Ðprinciple€embodied€in€that€rule€constitute€part€of€the€common€law€of€evidence,€however,Ïand€therefore,€in€that€context,€is€applicableÔ#†XD%X‹Š°Øg#ÔÔ‡Š°Ø‹XXD%Ô.€ {Ý ƒ üÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý›Ô_Ô€Ô€Š°Ø‹XXÔIn€the€case€òòsubóó€òòjudiceóó,€the€State€admitted€that€the€lack€of€interest€showed€by€theÐ ° Ðpetitioner€in€the€police€search€for€his€wifeððs€murderer€was€ambiguous€because€it€ð ðmay€beÏsubject€to€more€than€one€interpretation€.€.€.€.ðð€€ lÝ ƒ üÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý›Ô_ÔÔ€Š°Ø‹XXÔ€The€trial€court,€moreover,€limited€the€prejudicial€effect€of€the€evidence€during€its€Ð ° Ðfinal€charge€to€the€jury:ÌÓ XÓÓ XÓÓ  Óð ðOften€times€when€asked€about€motive€with€respect€to€criminal€cases€motiveÏis€not€an€element€of€a€crime.€€It€need€not€be€shown.€€However,€you€mayÏconsider€the€motive€or€lack€of€motive€as€a€circumstance€in€the€case.€€PresenceÏof€motive€may€be€evidence€of€guilt.€€Absence€of€motive€may€suggestÏinnocence.€€You€should€give€the€presence€or€the€absence€of€motive,€as€the€caseÏmay€be,€the€weight€that€you€believe€it€deserves.ððÌÓÓ€€ÌÓ XÓÓ XøÓThus,€we€conclude€that€the€judge€also€properly€minimized€any€possible€prejudicial€effectÏof€the€evidence.€ Ý ƒ üÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý›Ô_Ô€Ô‡Š0†‹XXÔòòMiranda€v.€Arizonaóó,€384€U.S.€436;€86€S.€Ct.€1602;€16€L.€Ed.€2d€694Ô#†XD%X‹Š0†U#Ô€(1966)Ô‡Š0†‹XXD%ÔÐ ° Ð(allowing€defendant€the€right€to€be€warned€of€several€rights).€€Suspects€usually€hear€theÏfollowing€from€government€authorities:ÌÓ  ÓÓ XÓÓ XÓð ð1.€You€have€the€right€to€remain€silent,ÌÌð ð2.€Anything€you€say€can€and€will€be€used€against€you€in€a€court€of€law,ÌÌð ð3.€You€have€the€right€to€talk€to€a€lawyer€and€have€him€present€with€you€whileÏbeing€questioned,ÌÌð ð4.€If€you€cannot€afford€to€hire€a€lawyer€one€will€be€appointed€to€represent€youÏbefore€any€questioning,ÌÌð ð5.€You€may€also€waive€the€right€to€counsel€and€your€right€to€remain€silentÏand€you€may€answer€any€question€or€make€any€statement€you€wish.€If€youÏdecide€to€answer€questions€you€may€stop€answering€questions€at€any€time,€toÏconsult€with€an€attorney,ÌÌð ð6.€Do€you€understand€what€I€have€told€you?ððÔ#†XD%X‹Š0†æ#ÔÔ‡Š0†‹XXD%ÔÐ °  ÐÓ›ÓÓ X§ÓÓ XµÓÓ XÓÓ XÓÔ#†XD%X‹Š0†a#Ô(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular Ý ƒ üÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý›Ô_Ô€Ô‡Š0†‹XXÔòòMiranda€v.€Arizonaóó,€384€U.S.€436;€86€S.€Ct.€1602;€16€L.€Ed.€2d€694Ô#†XD%X‹Š0†U#Ô€(1966)Ô‡Š0†‹XXD%ÔÐ ° Ð(allowing€defendant€the€right€to€be€warned€of€several€rights).€€Suspects€usually€hear€theÏfollowing€from€government€authorities:ÌÓ  ÓÓ XÓÓ XÓð ð1.€You€have€the€right€to€remain€silent,ÌÌð ð2.€Anything€you€say€can€and€will€be€used€against€you€in€a€court€of€law,ÌÌð ð3.€You€have€the€right€to€talk€to€a€lawyer€and€have€him€present€with€you€whileÏbeing€questioned,ÌÌð ð4.€If€you€cannot€afford€to€hire€a€lawyer€one€will€be€appointed€to€represent€youÏbefore€any€questioning,ÌÌð ð5.€You€may€also€waive€the€right€to€counsel€and€your€right€to€remain€silentÏand€you€may€answer€any€question€or€make€any€statement€you€wish.€If€youÏdecide€to€answer€questions€you€may€stop€answering€questions€at€any€time,€toÏconsult€with€an€attorney,ÌÌð ð6.€Do€you€understand€what€I€have€told€you?Ô#†XD%X‹Š0†æ#ÔÔ‡Š0†‹XXD%ÔððÐ °  ÐÓ›ÓÓ X§ÓÓ XµÓÓ XÓÓ XÓÔ#†XD%X‹Š0†]#Ô(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular gÝ ƒ üÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý›Ô_Ô€Ô€Š°Ø‹XXÔð ðElimination€printsðð€are€fingerprints€taken€from€a€low€probability€suspect,€whichÐ ° Ðare€then€measured€against€fingerprints€lifted€from€the€crime€scene,€in€order€to€eliminateÏthe€possible€suspect€from€a€list€of€suspects. Ý ƒ üÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý›Ô_Ô€Ô‡Š°Ø‹XXÔòòMiranda€v.€Arizonaóó,€384€U.S.€436;€86€S.€Ct.€1602;€16€L.€Ed.€2d€694Ô#†XD%X‹Š°ØU#Ô€(1966)Ô‡Š°Ø‹XXD%ÔÐ ° Ð(allowing€defendant€the€right€to€be€warned€of€several€rights).€€Suspects€usually€hear€theÏfollowing€from€government€authorities:ÌÓ  ÓÓ XÓÓ XÓð ð1.€You€have€the€right€to€remain€silent,ÌÌð ð2.€Anything€you€say€can€and€will€be€used€against€you€in€a€court€of€law,ÌÌð ð3.€You€have€the€right€to€talk€to€a€lawyer€and€have€him€present€with€you€whileÏbeing€questioned,ÌÌð ð4.€If€you€cannot€afford€to€hire€a€lawyer€one€will€be€appointed€to€represent€youÏbefore€any€questioning,ÌÌð ð5.€You€may€also€waive€the€right€to€counsel€and€your€right€to€remain€silentÏand€you€may€answer€any€question€or€make€any€statement€you€wish.€If€youÏdecide€to€answer€questions€you€may€stop€answering€questions€at€any€time,€toÏconsult€with€an€attorney,ÌÌð ð6.€Do€you€understand€what€I€have€told€you?Ô#†XD%X‹Š°Øæ#ÔÔ‡Š°Ø‹XXD%ÔððÐ °  ÐÓ›ÓÓ X§ÓÓ XµÓÓ XÓÓ XÓÔ#†XD%X‹Š°Ø]#Ô dÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý›Ô_ÔÔ€ŠP‡‹XXÔÓ  ÓÓÓÓÓÔ‡ô‹¶õ‹ŠP‡ÔÑ€Õ»ÑCircuit€Court€of€Baltimore€CountyÔ#†ŠP‡‹õô‹¶{#ÔÐ ° ÐÓE1ee½ m Å uÍ%}Õ-… Ý"°œXEÓà0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àà0gh(#h(#à€òòIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€MARYLANDóóÐvÆg(#g(# ÐÒ°ÒÓ  ÓÓ9tÌ$|Ô,„!ee…Xu‡X9Ӏ̀No.€€139̀̀September€Term,€1998ÌÌß?€''  dEu  ?ßÓÓÐ v Æ ÐÓÓÌÌWILLIAM€L.€SNYDER,ñ,;ñ€SR.ñ,;ñÌÌÌv.ÌÌÌSTATE€OF€MARYLANDÌÌÌß?€''  dE„ ?ßÓÓÐ …Õ ÐÓÓ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÓiÓÒ°ÒÓE1ee½ m Å uÍ%}Õ-… Ý"‡XEÓÓÓÓ  Óà0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àà0gh(#h(#àà À àà  à€€Bell,€C.J.Ð g(#g(# Ðà0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àà0gh(#h(#àà À àà  à€€Ô_Ô¢Eldridge£Ô_ÔÐ g(#g(# Ðà0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àà0gh(#h(#àà À àà  à€*Ô_ÔRodowskyÔ_ÔÐ g(#g(# Ðà0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àà0gh(#h(#àà À àñ ;ñà  àñ ;ññ!;ñ€€€€€€€€€ñ!;ñ*€*ChasanowÔ_ÔÐ g(#g(# Ðà0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àà0gh(#h(#àà À àà  à€€Raker€€Ð g(#g(# Ðà0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àà0gh(#h(#àà À àà  à€€Ô_ÔWilnerÔ_Ô,Ð g(#g(# Ðà0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àà0gh(#h(#àà À àà  à€€Ô_Ô¢Cathell£Ô_Ô€€€€€€€€Ô_Ô¢J.J.£Ô_Ô€€€€€€€€€€€Ð g(#g(# ÐÒ°ÒÓ  ÓÓ9tÌ$|Ô,„!ee…Xu‡X9ÓÌß?€''  dE“ ?ßÓÓÐ ”ä ÐÓÓÌOpinion€by€Bell,€C.J.Ìñ-;ñ¢Cathell£,€J.,€concurs€in€result€only.ñ-;ñÌß?€''  dE¢" ?ßÓÓÐ £"ó! ÐÓÓÒeÒÓ  ÓÓE1ee½ m Å uÍ%}Õ-… Ý"‡XEÓà ½ àà  àà m àà Å àà  àà  àÌà ½ àà  àà m àà Å àà  àà  àà u àà Í àà % àFiled:à0 } àà0Õ}(#}(#àà0-Õ(#Õ(#àà0… -(#-(#àà0Ý"… (#… (#àà0@Ý"… (#… (#à€€Ð ²## Ѐ€Ð Ý"(#Ý"(# Ðà0 ½ àà0 ½(#½(#àà0m  (# (#àà0Å m (#m (#àà0Å (#Å (#àà0(#(#àà0u(#(#àÔ‡&8D%‹ŠP‡Ô*Ô_ÔRodowskyÔ_Ô,€J.,€now€retired,€participated€in€the€hearingÐ ²%!% Ðand€conference€of€this€case€while€an€active€member€ofÏthis€Court;€after€being€recalled€pursuant€to€theÏConstitution,€Article€IV,€Section€¢3A£,€he€also€participatedÏin€the€decision€and€adoption€of€this€opinion.Ð u(#u(# ÐÌà0 ½ àà0 ½(#½(#àà0m  (# (#àà0Å m (#m (#àà0Å (#Å (#àà0(#(#àà0u(#(#à€ñ";ñ*ñ";ñ*ñ";ñ¢ñ";ñChasanowñ";ñ£ñ";ñ,€J.ñ.;ñ,€ñ.;ñ€now€retired,€participated€in€the€hearingÏand€conference€of€this€case€while€an€€active€member€ofÏthis€Court,€but€did€not€participate€in€the€decision€andÏadoption€of€this€opinion.Ô#†ŠP‡‹%&8D‘ #ÔÐJ-š(.u(#u(# ÐÓ0Óà0 ½ àà0 ½(#½(#àà0m  (# (#àà0Å m (#m (#àà0Å (#Å (#àà0(#(#àÐ (#(# ÐÒ°eÒÓ  ÓÓK.°°` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#ee…Xu‡XKÓà  àThe€petitioner,€William€L.€Snyder,€was€tried€and€convicted€of€the€first€degreeÏpremeditated€murder€of€his€wife€and€sentenced€to€life€imprisonment.€€He€appealed€hisÏconviction€and€sentence€to€the€Court€of€Special€Appeals,€which€reversed.€€òòSeeóó€òòSnyder€v.Ð °  ÐStateóó,€104€Md.€App.€533,€657€A.2d€342€(1995).׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Following€a€second€trial,€the€petitioner€wasÐ °  Ðagain€convicted€of€first€degree€murder€and€again€sentenced€to€life€imprisonment.€€In€anÏunreported€opinion,€the€Court€of€Special€Appeals€affirmed€the€judgment.€€On€certiorari€toÏthis€Court,€the€petitioner€raises€two€issues:€first,€whether€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€heldÏthat€facts€establishing€that€the€petitioner€did€not€inquire€about€the€progress€of€the€policeÏinvestigation€into€his€wifeððs€murder€were€admissible€as€evidence€of€his€consciousness€ofÏguilt€and,€second,€whether€the€trial€court€erred€by€permitting€the€State€to€introduceÏtestimony,€that€seven€months€prior€to€the€murder,€the€petitioner€and€the€victim€had€a€physicalÏdispute,€and€that,€at€some€unspecified€date€during€the€marriage,€the€petitioner€hit€the€victim.€ÏAnswering€the€first€question€in€the€affirmative€and€the€second€question€in€the€negative,€weÏshall€reverse.Ìà  àà@­­)ìàI.ˆÌ€à  àMrs.€Kay€Snyder,€the€wife€of€the€petitioner,€was€murdered€and,€on€February€14,€1986,Ð °$  Ðher€body€was€found€lying€on€the€side€of€the€road€across€the€street€from€their€home.€€SevenÏyears€later,€the€petitioner€was€charged€with,€and€tried€for,€her€murder.€Ìà  àAt€the€petitionerððs€first€trial€in€the€Circuit€Court€for€Baltimore€County,€the€StateÐ °*&& ÐÑÕ»Ñâ âÑ8€\XXdìXXdì8ÑØØâ âÑ  ÑÑÕ»Ñâ âÑ8€\XXdìXXdì8ÑØØâ âÑ  Ñmaintained€that€the€petitioner€killed€his€wife€because€their€marriage€was€breaking€apart€andÏthe€petitioner€wished€to€retain€full€ownership€of€their€house€and€collect€as€the€beneficiaryÏon€his€wifeððs€life€insurance€policy.€€Without€forensic€evidence€or€eyewitness€testimony€Ïlinking€the€petitioner€to€the€murder,€the€State€based€its€case€solely€on€circumstantialÏevidence.€€During€both€opening€and€closing€statements,€the€State€stressed€this€circumstantialÏevidence,€contending€that€it€established€that€the€petitioner€was€the€killer.€€That€evidenceÏincluded€the€petitionerððs€behavior€the€day€of€the€killing,€evidence€that€the€killer€took€painsÏto€delay€discovery€of€the€crime,€evidence€that€the€murder€did€not€occur€during€a€robbery€orÏsexual€assault,€evidence€of€the€petitionerððs€ð ðstormyðð€relationship€with€his€wife€leading€upÏto€the€murder,€evidence€that€the€petitioner€and€his€wife€€had€a€ð ðbig€fightðð€the€evening€beforeÏthe€murder,€as€well€as€evidence€establishing€that€the€petitioner€had€a€financial€motive€for€theÏmurder.€€Ìà  àThe€petitioner€denied€the€charges.€€He€argued€instead€that€he€was€married€to€theÏvictim€for€almost€25€years,€that€his€relationship€with€his€wife€was€ð ðgreat€and€getting€better,ððÏand€that€ð ðeverything€Ô_Ô¢ha[d£Ô_Ô]€been€great€for€[the]€last€three€or€four€monthsðð€before€the€murder.Ìà  àA€jury€found€the€petitioner€guilty€of€first€degree€murder€and€the€court€sentenced€himÏto€life€imprisonment.€€On€appeal,€the€Court€of€Special€Appeals€reversed€the€conviction€andÏremanded€for€a€new€trial,€having€concluded€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€admitting€anÏinvestigating€officerððs€unfairly€prejudicial€and€speculative€statements.€€òòSnyderóó,€òòsupraóó,€104Ð °($$ ÐMd.€App.€at€553„54,€657€A.2d€at€352„53.€Ð °*&& Ðà  àThe€petitioner€was€retried.€€Similar€to€the€first€trial,€and€over€the€petitionerððsÏobjection,€the€State€presented€testimony€regarding€the€petitionerððs€and€the€victimððsÏrelationship€leading€up€to€the€murder.€€A€friend€of€the€victim€testified€that€she€had€aÏtelephone€conversation€with€the€victim€the€night€before€the€murder€and€that€the€victim€statedÏin€that€conversation€that€she€ð ðjust€had€a€fightðð€with€the€petitioner,€during€which€theÏpetitioner€ð ðtold€her€that€she€was€a€dead€woman.ðð€€The€friend€also€stated€that,€at€the€time€ofÏthis€conversation,€the€victim€ð ðwas€crying€and€real€excited.ðð€€ð ðShe€was€upset.ðð€€ð ðShe€wasÏscared.ðð€€The€State€elicited€additional€testimony,€also€over€the€petitionerððs€objection,€fromÏthe€daughters€of€the€petitioner€regarding€a€physical€dispute€between€the€victim€and€theÏpetitioner€that€occurred€on€July€30,€1985.€€The€trial€court€stated€its€reasons€for€admitting€theÏÓÓevidence€of€the€July€30,€1985€dispute:Ìà8  àð ðI€think€this€is€a€circumstantial€case,€and€the€latest€analogy€used€to€always€sayÏthe€links€of€a€chain.€€Now,€the€writer€is€saying€strands€in€a€cable€makes€it€evenÏthinner€than€links€of€a€chain.€€I€think€he€is€entitled€to€show€a€continuingÏatmosphere€as€being€the€motive.€€I€agree€he€has€to€start€somewhere.Ð Ð Ð  ÐÓ$ÓÓ $ÓÌà8  àð ðSo€your€objection€is€noted€for€the€record.€€Iððm€going€to€overrule€it€and€allowÏit.€€I€think€it€is€circumstantial€part€of€motive.ððÐ Ð Ð  ЀÌÓÄ%Óà  àOnce€again,€over€the€petitionerððs€objection,€the€State€was€permitted€to€offer€testimonyÏfrom€the€investigating€authorities€regarding€the€petitionerððs€conduct€during€the€months€andÏyears€following€the€murder.€€An€investigating€officer€for€the€State€testified€that,€sinceÏâ âFebruary€20,€1986,€the€day€the€petitioner€voluntarily€went€to€the€police€station€to€giveÐ °'## Ðð ðelimination€prints,ðð׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€the€petitioner€made€no€inquiry€regarding€the€status€of€the€policeÐ ° Ðâ âinvestigation.€€In€closing€argument,€the€prosecutor€was€thus€able€to€urge€the€jury€to€find€thisÏÓÓlack€of€inquiry€evidence€of€a€guilty€conscience.€€More€particularly,€he€argued:Ìà8  àð ðIf€he€didnððt€do€it€and€he€was,€as€he€said,€a€loving€spouse€that€cared€about€hisÏwife,€the€relationship,€that€things€were€getting€better,€if€that€were€true,Ïwouldnððt€he€have€called€the€police€to€inquire€at€the€very€least.ðð€€€€Ð Ð Ð  ÐÓg)ÓÓÅ)ÓÌÓð*Óà  àThe€petitioner€was€again€convicted€and€sentenced€to€life€imprisonment.€€He€appealedÏthe€conviction€to€the€Court€of€Special€Appeals,€where€he€argued,€òòinteróó€òòaliaóó,€that€the€trialÐ °  Ðcourt€erred€by€admitting€the€evidence€concerning€the€July€30,€1985€physical€dispute€andÏevidence€regarding€his€failure€to€inquire€about€the€status€of€the€police€investigation.€€TheÏCourt€of€Special€Appeals€affirmed€the€conviction,€reasoning€that€ð ð[Ô_Ô¢i]n£Ô_Ô€combination€withÏevidence€of€[the€petitionerððs]€efforts€to€hinder€the€investigation,׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€[the€petitionerððs]€failure€orÐ ° Ðrefusal€to€maintain€contact€with€the€investigating€officers€was€admissible€circumstantialÏevidence€of€guilt.ðð€€With€regard€to€the€petitionerððs€relationship€with€his€wife,€that€courtÏreasoned€that€evidence€of€the€petitionerððs€ð ðstormyðð€relationship€with€her€was€properlyÏÓÓadmitted€because,€the€evidence€was:Ð ° ÐÓ/ÓÓÓà8  àð ðnot€offered€to€establish€a€propensity€for€violent€conduct.€€The€State€wasÏentitled€to€establish€that€appellant€had€both€a€personal€motive€and€anÏeconomic€motive€to€murder€the€victim.ððÐ Ð Ð  ÐÓv/ÓÓ¾/ÓÌÓ0Óà  àThe€petitioner€filed€a€timely€petition€for€certiorari,€which€we€granted€in€order€toÏconsider€the€important€evidentiary€issues€raised.€Ìà@‰‰)ìàII.ˆÌà@‚‚)ìàA.ˆÌà  àFirst,€the€petitioner€argues€that€the€evidence€offered€to€establish€that€he€did€notÏinquire€about€the€progress€of€the€police€investigation€into€his€wifeððs€murder€wasÏinadmissible€to€prove€a€consciousness€of€guilt.€€He€contends€that€culpability€for€murderingÏhis€wife€cannot€logically€be€inferred€from€the€failure€to€inquire.€€Citing€òòBedford€v.€Stateóó,€317Ð ° ÐMd.€659,€667„68,€506€A.2d€111,€115€(1989),€and€òòÔ_Ô¢Pettie£Ô_Ô€v.€Stateóó,€316€Md.€509,€519„20,€560Ð ° ÐA.2d€577,€581„82€(1989),€the€petitioner€argues€that,€because,€as€it€is€in€this€case,€the€failureÏto€inquire€is€so€ambiguous€and€is€subject€to€so€many€interpretations,€evidence€of€the€lack€ofÏinquiry€cannot€be€probative€of€consciousness€of€guilt€and,€therefore,€simply€is€irrelevant.€€Ìà  àThe€State€disagrees.€€It€argues€that€the€petitioner€misreads€the€threshold€requirementÏfor€evidence€to€be€considered€relevant,€and€contends€that€the€trial€court€properly€admittedÏthe€evidence.€€Citing€òòMcCormick€on€Evidenceóó€ðð€185,€at€887€(4òòthóó€ed.€1992),€the€StateÐ °$  Ðâ âmaintains€that€most€evidence€offered€at€trial€has€some€probative€value€and€that,€indeed,Ð °&"" Ðvirtually€all€human€conduct€is€subject€to€more€than€one€interpretation€or€explanation.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€In€thisÐ ° Ðâ âcase,€it€argues,€the€petitionerððs€failure€to€inquire€into€the€police€investigation€was€probativeÏon€a€ð ðhotly€contested€issue€ð"ð€the€nature€of€[the€petitionerððs]€relationship€with€his€wife.ðð€ÏTherefore,€the€state€contends,€the€ambiguity€and€competing€inferences€about€which€theÏpetitioner€complains€do€not€affect€admissibility,€but€rather€go€to€the€weight€that€the€trier€ofÏfact€determines€to€give€the€evidence.€€In€sum,€the€ÓÓState€argues€that,€Ìà8  àð ð[Ô_Ô¢t]he£Ô_Ô€jury€in€this€case,€looking€to€the€circumstances€as€whole,€couldÏreasonably€infer€that,€if€[the€petitioner]€was€a€loving€spouse,€as€his€counselÏinsisted€he€was,€he€would€have€called€police€sometime€in€[the]€months€andÏyears€following€his€wifeððs€murder€to€ask€about€the€progress€of€theirÏinvestigation.ðð€€ÓÞ8ÓÐ Ð Ð  ÐÓ  ÓB.€ÌÓž:Óà  àThe€rules€governing€the€admissibility€of€evidence€are€contained€in€Chapter€400€of€theÏMaryland€Rules€of€Evidence.€€The€first€rule€in€that€chapter,€Md.€Rule€5„401,€definesÏÓÓð ðrelevant€evidence.ðð€€It€provides:Ìà8  àð ðððRelevant€evidenceðð€means€evidence€having€òòany€tendencyóó€to€make€theÐ ° Ðexistence€of€òòany€fact€that€is€of€consequence€to€the€determination€of€the€actionóóÐ ° Ðmore€probable€or€less€probable€than€it€would€be€without€the€evidence.ðð€€Ð Ð Ð  ÐÓu;ÓÓL=ÓÌ(Emphasis€added).Ó=Ó€€This€Court€has€applied€and€discussed€this€definition.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòConyersÐ °  Ðv.€Stateóó,€354€Md.€132,€176,€729€A.2d€910,€933€(1999),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€529€U.S.€___€120€S.€Ct.Ð °" Ð258,€145€L.€Ed.€2d€216€(1999);€òòHopkins€v.€Stateóó,€352€Md.€146,€721€A.2d€231€(1998);Ð °$  ÐòòÔ_Ô¢Smallwood£Ô_Ô€v.€Bradfordóó,€352€Md.€8,€26„27,€720€A.2d€586,€595„96€(1998);€òòÔ_Ô¢Merzbacher£Ô_Ô€v.Ð °&"" ÐStateóó,€346€Md.€391,€697€A.2d€432€(1997).€€While€often€noting€the€important€distinctionÐ ° Ðbetween€weight€and€admissibility€and€favoring€a€policy€of€broad€admissibility,€we€haveÏconsistently€held€that€a€party€seeking€to€establish€the€relevancy€of€proffered€evidence€doesÏnot€have€to€demonstrate€that€the€evidence€is€weighty€enough€to€carry€that€partyððs€burden€ofÏpersuasion.€€òòSeeóó€Md.€Rule€5„401.€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòConyers€v.€Stateóó,€354€Md.€at€176,€729€A.2d€atÐ °  Ð933;€òòHopkinsóó,€352€Md.€at€159,€721€A.2d€at€237;€òòÔ_Ô¢Smallwood£Ô_Ôóó,€352€Md.€at€26„27,€720€A.2dÐ °  Ðat€595„96;€òòÔ_Ô¢Merzbacher£Ô_Ô€v.€Stateóó,€346€Md.€at€404„405,€697€A.2d€at€439.€€In€fact,€Rule€5„401Ð °  Ðarticulates€the€threshold€that€must€be€reached;€that€threshold€expressly€requiring€only€thatÏthe€evidence€have€ð ðany€tendencyðð€to€prove€a€fact€of€consequence€to€the€cause€of€action.€Ìà  àRelevance€is€a€relational€concept.€€Accordingly,€an€item€of€evidence€can€be€relevantÏonly€when,€through€proper€analysis€and€reasoning,€it€is€related€logically€to€a€matter€at€issueÏin€the€case,€òòi.e.óó,€one€that€is€properly€provable€in€the€case.€€òòSeeóó€Md.€Rule€5„401.€€òòSee€alsoóóÐ ° ÐòòWilliams€v.€Stateóó,€342€Md.€724,€736,€679€A.2d€1106,€1112€(1996).€€In€order€to€find€that€suchÐ ° Ða€relationship€exists,€the€trial€court€must€be€satisfied€that€the€proffered€item€of€evidence€is,Ïon€its€face€or€otherwise,€what€the€proponent€claims€that€item€to€be,€and,€if€so,€that€itsÏadmission€increases€or€decreases€the€probability€of€the€existence€of€a€material€fact.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,Ð °" ÐòòÔ_Ô¢Pettie£Ô_Ôóó,€316€Md.€at€519„20,€560€A.2d€at€582€(declining€to€reach€issue€of€whether€profferedÐ °$  Ðevidence€was€admissible€because€facts€did€not€support€conclusion€that€evidence€was€whatÏproponent€claimed€it€to€be).€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòÔ_Ô¢Pappaconstantinou£Ô_Ô€v.€Stateóó,€352€Md.€167,€181,€721Ð °($$ ÐA.2d€241,€248€(1998)€(observing€that€ð ð[Ô_Ô¢o]bviously£Ô_Ô,€evidence€that€the€trial€judge€deemsÐ °*&& Ðunreliable€or€untrustworthy€is€not€probative€to€any€fact€that€is€of€consequence€to€theÏdetermination€of€the€case,€and€hence,€is€not€relevant€evidenceðð).€€Moreover,€the€relevancyÏdetermination€is€not€made€in€isolation.€€Instead,€the€test€of€relevance€is€whether,€inÏconjunction€with€all€other€relevant€evidence,€the€evidence€tends€to€make€the€propositionÏasserted€more€or€less€probable.€€òòÔ_Ô¢Spector£Ô_Ô€v.€Stateóó,€289€Md.€407,€434,€425€A.2d€197,€211Ð °  Ð(1981).Ìà  àMd.€Rules€5-402€and€5„403€provide€additional€guidance€with€respect€to€theÏÓÓadmissibility€of€relevant€€evidence.€€Rule€5„402€provides:Ìà8  àð ðExcept€as€otherwise€provided€by€constitutions,€statutes,€or€these€rules,€or€byÏdecisional€law€not€inconsistent€with€these€rules,€òòallóó€relevant€evidence€isÐ ° Ðadmissible.€€Evidence€that€is€òònotóó€relevant€is€òònot€admissibleóó.ðð€€Ð°Ð Ð  ÐÌÓJÓ(Emphasis€added).€€Rule€5„403€makes€clear,€by€prescribing€a€balancing€test,€that€relevancyÏÓÓis€not€the€only€test€for€admissibility€of€evidence.€€That€rule€provides:Ìà8  àð ðAlthough€relevant,€evidence€may€be€excluded€if€itsòò€òòóóprobative€value€isÐ ° Ðsubstantially€outweighed€by€the€danger€of€unfair€prejudiceóó,€confusion€of€theÐ ° Ðissues,€or€misleading€the€jury,€or€by€considerations€of€undue€delay,€waste€ofÏtime,€or€needless€presentation€of€cumulative€evidence.ððÐ Ð Ð  ÐÌÓLÓ(Emphasis€added).Ô_Ô׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ô_Ô€€Therefore,€evidence€which€meets€the€definition€of€ð ðrelevant€evidenceððÐ ° Ðunder€Rule€5„401,€and€which,€therefore,€would€be€admissible€under€Rule€5„402€as€havingÏlogical€relevance,€may€nonetheless€be€excluded€under€Rule€5„403.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòÔ_Ô¢Merzbacher£Ô_Ôóó,Ð ° Ð346€Md.€at€404,€697€A.2d€at€439;€òòWilliamsóó,€342€Md.€at€737,€679€A.2d€at€1113;€Md.€RuleÐ ° Ð5-403.Ìà  àIf€relevant,€circumstantial€evidence€regarding€a€defendantððs€conduct€may€beÏadmissible€under€Md.€Rule€5„403,€not€as€conclusive€evidence€of€guilt,€but€as€a€circumstanceÏtending€to€show€a€consciousness€of€guilt.€€òòHunt€v.€Stateóó,€312€Md.€494,€503„04,€540€A.2dÐ °  Ð1125,€1129„30€(1988);€òòWright€v.€Stateóó,€312€Md.€648,€654„655,€541€A.2d€988,€991€(1988);Ð ° ÐòòDavis€v.€Stateóó,€237€Md.€97,€105„106,€205€A.2d€254,€259€(1964),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€382€U.S.€945,Ð ° Ð86€S.€Ct.€402,€15€L.€Ed.€2d€354€(1965);€òòÔ_Ô¢Westcoat£Ô_Ô€v.€Stateóó,€231€Md.€364,€368,€190€A.2d€544,Ð ° Ð546€(1963).€€Thus,€this€Court€has€held€that,€through€a€series€of€inferences,€evidence€of€aÏdefendantððs€behavior€after€the€commission€of€a€crime€may€be€admissible.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,Ð ° ÐòòÔ_Ô¢Whittlesey£Ô_Ô€v.€Stateóó,€340€Md.€30,€59-62,€665€A.2d€223,€238€(1995)€(holding€that€other€crimesÐ ° Ðevidence,€consisting€of€testimony€about€the€defendant's€admission€of€other€crimes,€properlyÏadmitted€under€special€circumstances€indicating€defendant's€consciousness€of€guilt);€òòHuntÐ °  Ðv.€Stateóó,€òòsupraóó,€312€Md.€at€503„504,€540€A.2d€at€1129„30€(determining€evidence€thatÐ °" Ðdefendant€escaped€or€attempted€to€escape€from€custody€admissible€as€inference€to€prove€aÏconsciousness€of€guilt);€òòWright€v.€Stateóó,€òòsupraóó,€312€Md.€at€654„655,€541€A.2d€at€991„92Ð °&"" Ð(admitting€evidence€that€defendant€concealed€his€identity€as€supporting€inference€of€theÏdefendantððs€consciousness€of€guilt).€€òòBut€Ô_ÔcfÔ_Ô.óó,€òòBedford€v.€Stateóó,€òòsupraóó,€317€Md.€667„68,€566Ð °*&& ÐA.2d€at€115€(determining€evidence€of€defendantððs€possession€of€wire€after€arrestÏinadmissible€as€evidence€of€plan€to€escape€and€therefore€inadmissible€as€evidence€of€aÏconsciousness€of€guilt€because,€under€the€facts€of€the€case,€ð ð[Ô_Ô¢t]he£Ô_Ô€possession€of€the€wireÏ[was]€so€equivocalðð€that€its€admission€into€evidence€was€more€prejudicial€than€probative€andÏdid€not€make€the€proposition€asserted€more€probable).Ìà  àConsciousness€of€guilt€can€be€inferred€either€from€some€ð ðpre„arrest€silence,ðð€òòÔ_Ô¢Greir£Ô_ÔÐ °  Ðv.€Stateóó,€351€Md.€241,€252,€718€A.2d€211,€217€(1998)€(holding€pre-arrest€silence€may€beÐ °  Ðadmissible€as€substantive€evidence€of€guilt,€on€a€case-by-case€basis,€when€it€amounts€to€aÏtacit€admission);€òòÔ_ÔcfÔ_Ô.óó€òòDoyle€v.€Ohioóó,€426€U.S.€610,€96€S.€Ct.€2240,€L.€Ed.€2d€(1976)Ð ° Ð(determining,€in€a€post„arrest€context,€that€òòMirandaóóñ#;ññ%;ññ+;ñ׃×ñ+;ññ+;ñ׃×ñ+;ññ%;ññ%;ñ׃×ñ%;ññ#;ññ#;ñ׃ ×ñ#;ñÝ ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€warnings€contain€an€implicit€assuranceÐ ° Ðthat€silence€will€carry€no€penalty),€or€from€the€ð ðfailure€to€inquire.ðð€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Marshallóó,Ð ° Ð586€A.2d€85,€143„46€(N.J.€1991)€(inquiring€too€little€led€to€an€inference€of€a€consciousnessÏof€guilt).€€The€standard€of€proof€for€pre„arrest€silence€is€more€stringent€than€the€standard€ofÏproof€for€failure€to€inquire.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó€at€146€(noting€that€pre„arrest€silence,€that€of€refusing€toÐ °  Ðanswer€questions,€enjoys€constitutional€protection).€€As€such,€if€consciousness€of€guiltÏcannot€be€inferred€from€pre„arrest€silence,€then€it€would€appear€that,€clearly,€it€may€not€beÏinferred€from€a€failure€to€inquire.Ìà  àWhen€viewed€in€the€context€of€the€petitioners€right€to€remain€silent,€the€admissionÏof€the€petitionerððs€silence€as€evidence€of€his€consciousness€of€guilt€in€the€case€òòsubóó€òòjudiceóó€hasÐ ° Ðan€element€of€unfairness,€and€is€not€very€probative€of€that€fact.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòÔ_Ô¢Greir£Ô_Ô€v.€Stateóó,€351Ð ° ÐMd.€241,€252,€718€A.2d€211,€217€(opining€that€ð ð[Ô_Ô¢e]vidence£Ô_Ô€of€a€personððs€silence€is€generallyÏinadmissible€because€ðð[Ô_Ô¢i]n£Ô_Ô€most€circumstances€silence€is€so€ambiguous€that€it€is€of€littleÏprobative€forceðððð)€(internal€citation€omitted).€€Indeed,€when€the€suspect€has€a€right€to€remainÏsilent,€evidence€that€a€suspect€refused€to€speak€with€the€police€is€not€ordinarily€admissibleÏto€prove€his€or€her€consciousness€of€guilt.€€òòId.óó€at€252„53.€€In€the€case€òòsubóó€òòjudiceóó,€theÐ °  Ðpetitioner€was€considered€a€suspect€in€his€wifeððs€murder.€€Although€the€petitioner€declinedÏto€speak€about€his€wifeððs€murder,€he€voluntarily€cooperated€with€authorities,€givingÏexemplars€of€his€fingerprints,€hair€and€blood€as€requested.€€Under€these€circumstances,€theÏpetitionerððs€silence€is€too€equivocal€to€be€probative.Ð °($$ Ðà  àSimply€because€the€authorities€were€not€required€to€advise€the€petitioner€of€his€rightÏto€remain€silent€until€they€subjected€him€to€a€custodial€interrogation€does€not€mean€that€theÏpetitionerððs€silence€prior€to€that€occurrence€should€receive€less€protection€or€that€theÏpetitioner€may€be€penalized€on€that€account.€€Many€of€our€sister€states€that€have€consideredÏthis€issue€have€expressed€their€distrust€of€evidence€of€pre„arrest€silence€as€probative€of€aÏconsciousness€of€guilt,€noting€its€inherently€low€probative€value€and€its€high€potential€forÏunfair€prejudice.€€òòSeeóó€òòCommonwealth€v.€Thompsonóó,€431€Mass.€108,€116,€725€¢N.E.2d£€556,Ð °  Ð565€(2000)€(determining€defendantððs€pre„arrest€silence,€blank€stares€and€failure€to€inquireÏabout€his€wifeððs€murder€properly€excluded€as€evidence€of€consciousness€of€guilt);€òòÔ_Ô¢Silvernail£Ô_ÔÐ ° Ðv.€Stateóó,€777€P.2d€1169,€1175€(Alas.€App.€1989)€(noting€a€ð ðdistrust€of€silence€as€probativeÐ ° Ðevidence€of€guiltðð);€òòCommonwealth€v.€Ô_Ô¢Nickerson£Ô_Ôóó,€386€Mass.€54,€62,€434€¢N.E.2d£€992,€995Ð ° Ð(1982)€(noting€ð ðimpeachment€of€a€defendant€with€the€fact€of€his€pre-arrest€silence€shouldÏbe€approached€with€cautionðð);€òòCommonwealth€v.€Harrisóó,€371€Mass.€462,€477,€358€¢N.E.2d£Ð ° Ð982,€991€(1976)€(holding€defendant's€hanging€his€head€and€biting€his€lips€not€admissible€asÏÔ_Ô¢nontestimonial£Ô_Ô€admission€demonstrating€consciousness€of€guilt).€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòPeople€v.Ð °  ТQuintana£óó,€665€P.2d€605,€610€(Colo.1983);€òòPeople€v.€Conyersóó,€52€¢N.Y.2d£€454,€458„59,€438Ð °" ТN.Y.S.2d£€741,€743,€420€¢N.E.2d£€933,€936€(1981).Ìà  àIn€the€case€òòsubóó€òòjudiceóó,€the€State€does€not€attempt€to€infer€consciousness€of€guilt€fromÐ °&"" Ðthe€petitioners€pre„arrest€silence,€its€focus€being€on€the€petitionerððs€subsequent€failure€toÏinquire€about€the€progress€of€the€police€investigation€into€his€wifeððs€murder.€€The€relevanceÐ °*&& Ðof€the€petitionerððs€failure€to€inquire€depends€upon€whether€that€evidence€supports€fourÏinferences:€from€the€failure€to€inquire,€satisfaction€of€the€case€not€being€solved€or€activelyÏpursued;€from€the€satisfaction€of€the€case€not€being€solved€or€actively€pursued,€aÏconsciousness€of€guilt;€from€a€consciousness€of€guilt,€a€consciousness€of€guilt€of€murder;Ïand€from€a€consciousness€of€guilt€of€murder,€actual€guilt€of€murder.€€We€believe€that,€underÏthe€circumstances€of€this€case,€evidence€that€the€defendant€failed€to€call€the€police€to€inquireÏabout€the€status€of€the€investigation,€even€for€seven€years,€is€too€ambiguous€and€equivocalÏto€support€such€inferences.Ìà  àAt€best,€the€admission€of€the€evidence€invites€the€jury€to€speculate.€€The€jury€is€askedÏto€presume€that€the€petitionerððs€failure€to€inquire€is€probative€of€the€absence€of€a€lovingÏrelationship€between€the€petitioner€and€€his€wife€and€then€to€speculate€as€to€the€connectionÏbetween€the€petitionerððs€relationship€with€his€wife€and€his€wifeððs€murder,€assuming€in€theÏprocess,€that€the€petitionerððs€failure€to€inquire€is€indicative€of€a€guilty€conscience.€€TheseÏassumptions€and€speculations€lack€probative€value€where,€as€in€this€case,€the€State€hasÏpresented€no€testimony€or€evidence,€from€the€investigating€authorities€or€any€other€source,Ïeither€as€to€the€general€response€of€family€members€during€a€murder€investigation€or€of€anyÏspecific€responses€or€types€of€inquires€made€by€members€of€the€Snyder€family€in€thisÏparticular€case.€€Moreover,€the€State€presented€no€evidence€that€the€petitioner€was€requestedÏby€the€authorities€to€inquire€regularly€and€certainly,€it€produced€no€evidence€that€theÏpetitioner€voluntarily€stated€that€he€would€regularly€inquire.€€Thus,€there€is€no€evidentiaryÐ °*&& Ðbasis€for€the€conclusion€that€the€jury€drew.Ìà  àThis€Courtððs€holding€in€òò¢Pettie£€v.€Stateóó,€316€Md.€509,€560€A.2d€577€(1989),€isÐ ° Ðinstructive.€€There,€the€petitioner,€while€an€inmate€at€the€Maryland€Correctional€TrainingÏCenter,€was€charged€with€committing€various€sexual€acts,€including€sodomy,€upon€anotherÏinmate.€€òòId.óó€at€512,€560€A.2d€at€578.€€The€State€was€permitted€to€introduce,€at€trial,€evidenceÐ °  Ðthat,€after€being€charged€and€placed€on€administrative€segregation,€a€guard€had€been€calledÏto€defendantððs€cell€by€another€inmate€who€had€found€an€apparent€suicide€note,€where€theÏdefendant€was€discovered,€ð ðnon€responsive€but€conscious,ðð€with€a€single€cut€to€his€wrist,€òòid.óóÐ ° Ðat€512,€560€A.2d€at€578,€that,€in€other€words,€the€defendant€€had€attempted€suicide.€€TheÏStateððs€€theory€was€that€evidence€of€the€defendantððs€attempted€suicide€tended€to€prove€theÏdefendantððs€consciousness€of€guilt.€€òò¢Pettie£óó,€òòsupraóó,€at€509,€560€A.2d€at€577.€€The€Court€ofÐ ° ÐSpecial€Appeals€having€affirmed€the€trial€courtððs€judgment,€òò¢Pettie£€v.€Stateóó,€70€Md.€Ô_ÔAppÔ_Ô€602,Ð ° Ð522€A.2d€394€(1987),€we€then€granted€certiorari€to€consider,€òòinteróó€òòaliaóó,€the€defendantððsÐ ° Ðchallenge€to€the€admission€of€that€evidence.€€We€held€that€the€evidence€offered€by€the€StateÏof€the€attempted€suicide€was€not€probative€and,€therefore,€irrelevant.€€Judge€Cole,€writingÏÓÓfor€the€Court,€explained:Ìà8  àð ðAs€a€general€matter,€evidence€of€conduct€of€the€accused€subsequent€to€theÏcharged€criminal€offense€is€admissible€if€probative€of€culpability.€€òòSeeóó€29€Am.Ð °$  ТJur£.2d,€òòEvidenceóó€ðð€278.€€Evidence€has€been€admitted€which€tends€to€show€theÐ °%!! Ðaccused€resisted€arrest,€òòBird€v.€United€Statesóó,€187€U.S.€118,€€23€S.€Ct.€42,€47Ð °&"" ÐL.€Ed.€100€(1902);€took€to€flight€or€concealment€prior€to€arrest,€òòAllen€v.Ð °'## ÐUnited€Statesóó,€164€U.S.€492,€17€S.€Ct.€154,€41€L.€Ed.€528€(1896);€suppressedÐ °($$ Ðor€destroyed€evidence,€òòHickory€v.€United€Statesóó,€160€U.S.€408,€16€S.€Ct.€327,Ð °)%% Ð40€L.€Ed.€474€(1896);€escaped€or€attempted€to€escape€from€custody,€òòHunt€v.Ð °*&& ÐStateóó,€312€Md.€494,€540€A.2d€1125€(1988);€concealed€his€identity,€òòWright€v.Ð °+'' ÐStateóó,€312€Md.€648,€541€A.2d€988€(1988);€attempted€suicide,€òòState€v.Ð ° ÐCampbellóó,€146€Mont.€251,€405€P.2d€978€(1965);€possessed€weapons,€òòPeopleÐ ° Ðv.€¢Northcott£óó,€209€Cal.€639,€289€P.€634€(1930);€possessed€stolen€property,€òòStateÐ ° Ðv.€Barnesóó,€47€Or.€592,€85€P.€998€(1906);€or€engaged€in€similar€conduct.€€òòSeeóóÐ ° ÐÔ_Ô¢Wigmore£Ô_Ô,€òòEvidenceóó,€ðð€276€(3d€ed.€1940).аРР ÐÓ7zÓÓ!‡ÓÌà8  àð ðUnder€Maryland€law,€evidence€of€a€defendantððs€flight€is€admissible,€not€asÏconclusive€of€guilt,€but€as€a€circumstance€tending€to€show€a€consciousness€ofÏguilt.€€òòWright€v.€Stateóó,€òòsupraóó,€312€Md.€648,€541€A.2d€988;€òòHunt€v.€Stateóó,Ð °  Ðòòsupraóó,€312€Md.€494,€540€A.2d€1125;€òòDavis€v.€Stateóó,€237€Md.€97,€205€A.2dÐ °  Ð254€(1964),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€òòDavis€v.€Marylandóó,€382€U.S.€945,€86€S.€Ct.€402,€15Ð °  ÐL.€Ed.€2d€354€(1965);€òò¢Westcoat£€v.€Stateóó,€231€Md.€364,€190€A.2d€544€(1963).а Ð Ð  Ѐ€Ìà8  àð ðAs€we€see€it,€however,€attempted€suicide€cannot€easily€be€circumscribed,€asÏthat€act€is€subject€to€innumerable€interpretations.€€Even€if€we€were€to€agreeÏthat€evidence€of€attempted€suicide€is€admissible€as€analogous€to€flight€andÏimplies€a€consciousness€of€guilt€(and€we€do€not€decide€that€issue),€the€factsÏhere€simply€do€not€support€the€conclusion€that€¢Pettie£€tried€to€kill€himself€at€all,Ïmuch€less€that€he€did€so€as€a€reaction€to€any€attack€on€or€sodomy€of€[theÏvictim].ððÐ Ð Ð  ÐÌòòId.óó€at€519„20,€560€A.2d€581„82.€Ó€ÓÐ ° Ðà  àTo€be€sure,€the€òò¢Pettie£óó€Court€recognized€that,€in€other€jurisdictions,€attempted€suicideÐ ° Ðhas€been€considered€probative€of€a€€consciousness€of€guilt.€€This€Court€did€not€reach€theÏissue,€however,€because€the€ambiguity€and€equivocal€nature€of€the€facts€surrounding€theÏalleged€act€did€not€satisfy€the€Court€that€the€act€was€what€the€State€purported€it€to€be.€€AsÏrelevance€only€has€meaning€in€the€context€of€the€relationship€between€the€proffered€item€andÏthe€matter€properly€provable€in€the€case,€we€concluded€that€the€proffered€evidence€had€noÏlogical€relevance€and,€therefore,€the€proffered€evidence€could€not€reasonably€affect€anÏassessment€of€the€fact€to€be€inferred,€òòi.e.óó,€that€the€defendant€attempted€suicide,€leading€to€aÐ °)%% Ðconclusion€that€he€did€so€as€result€of€a€consciousness€of€guilt.€€òòId.óó€at€520,€560€A.2d€at€582.Ð °+'' Ðà  àIf,€as€a€general€proposition,€evidence€of€a€defendantððs€failure€to€inquire€about€theÏprogress€of€a€police€investigation€were€probative€of€a€consciousness€of€guilt,€any€reactionÏor€failure€to€react€to€the€death€of€a€loved€one€by€a€family€member€or€friend€could€beÏconstrued€to€be€probative€of€guilt.€€Therefore,€the€fact€that€a€defendant€failed€to€inquireÏabout€the€police€investigation,€as€in€this€case,€see€òòState€v.€Marshallóó,€586€A.2d€85,€143„46Ð °  Ð(N.J.€1991)€(inquiring€too€little€led€to€conviction),€or€inquired€too€often,€see€òò¢Smithart£€v.Ð °  ÐStateóó,€946€P.2d€1264,€1275€(Alas.€App.€1997)€(inquiring€too€much€equaled€suspicion,€whichÐ °  Ðled€to€conviction),€would€suffice€to€support€a€jury€verdict.€€So€too,€would€evidence€that€theÏdefendant€inquired€or€grieved€in€a€way€that€the€State€deemed€out€of€the€norm,€irrespectiveÏof€the€significant€ambiguity€of€the€conduct.€€This€would€place€a€potential€defendant€in€theÏperennial€unenviable€position€of€being€caught€between€a€rock€and€a€hard€place.Ìà  àThe€Stateððs€reliance€upon€òòState€v.€Marshallóó€is€misplaced.€€In€òòMarshallóó,€the€defendantÐ ° Ðoffered€a€$10,000€dollar€reward€to€anyone€with€information€helpful€in€locating€his€wifeððsÏkiller€and€a€letter€was€sent€to€the€prosecutorððs€office€stating€that€he€was€willing€to€cooperateÏand€divulge€any€required€information,€586€A.2d€at€144,€but€during€the€resultingÏinvestigation,€he€failed€to€inquire€about€the€progress€of€finding€his€wifeððs€murderer.€ÏRejecting€the€defendantððs€contention€that€the€prosecutorððs€cross€examination€regarding€hisÏfailure€to€inquire€infringed€on€his€privilege€against€self„incrimination,€òòid.óó€at€144,€the€court,Ð °&"" Ðnoting€the€defendantððs€actions€in€offering€the€reward€and€communicating€with€the€police,Ïopined,€ð ð[Ô_Ô¢t]he£Ô_Ô€prosecutorððs€inquiry€did€not€address€defendantððs€refusal€to€admit€or€reveal€hisÐ °*&& Ðown€guilt,€but€rather€questioned€an€aspect€of€his€conduct€that€appeared€to€conflict€with€hisÏavowed€interest€in€tracing€down€his€wifeððs€murderer.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€146.€€Thus,€in€the€case€òòsubóóÐ ° Ðòòjudiceóó,€because€the€petitioner€never€indicated€an€avowed€interest€in€tracking€down€his€wifeððsÐ ° Ðmurderer,€òòMarshallóó€is€not€at€all€analogous€and€its€holding€is€inapplicable.Ð °  Ðà  àEven€if,€as€the€State€urges,€the€failure€to€inquire€about€the€police€investigation€hasÏsome€probative€value,€we€are€nevertheless€convinced€that€the€trial€court€abused€its€discretionÏin€admitting€the€evidence€in€this€case.€€As€we€have€seen,€there€is€a€strong€policy€in€favor€ofÏthe€admission€of€logically€relevant€evidence€so€long€as€the€proffered€evidence€satisfies€theÏrequirements€of€Md.€Rule€5„403,€òòi.e.óó,€its€probative€value€is€not€substantially€outweighed€byÐ ° Ðthe€danger€of€unfair€prejudice.€€Once€evidence€is€determined€to€be€relevant,€the€question€isÏwhat€inferences,€together€with€all€of€the€other€relevant€evidence,€can€the€jury€draw€from€theÏevidence.€€Any€probative€value€evidence€of€failure€to€inquire€has€is€slight€compared€to€theÏsubstantial€danger€that€it€will€result€in€unfair€prejudice.€€òòSeeóó€òòBedford€v.€Stateóó,€òòsupraóó,€317Ð ° ÐMd.€659,€566€A.2d€111.€€òòSee€alsoóó€10€òòMooreððs€Federal€Practiceóó€ðð€403.02€[3]€(2d€ed.€1979)Ð ° Ð(pointing€out,€ð ð[¢i]f£€the€relevance€of€the€proffered€evidence€is€suspect€or€slight€but€would€beÏprejudicial€then€any€justification€of€its€admission€is€slight€or€non-existentðð).Ìà  àWe€concluded,€in€òòBedfordóó,€that€ambiguous€and€equivocal€evidence€similar€to€that€atÐ °$  Ðissue€in€this€case€is€inadmissible€as€proof€of€a€consciousness€of€guilt.€€There,€the€defendant,Ïwho€was€convicted€of€first€degree€murder,€challenged€on€appeal€the€trial€courtððs€admission,Ïas€proof€of€his€plan€to€escape€and,€therefore,€his€consciousness€of€guilt,€evidence€that,€duringÐ °*&& Ða€strip€search,€prison€guards€discovered€a€four€inch€wire,€commonly€used€to€unlockÏhandcuffs,€hidden€on€his€person.€€317€Md.€at€664,€566€A.2d€at€113.€€This€Court€held€that€theÏÓÓintroduction€of€the€wire€was€reversible€error,€reasoning:Ìà8  àð ðòòThe€authorities€are€uniform€that€evidence€of€a€consciousness€of€guilt€isÐ °  Ðgenerally€circumstantial€and€should€be€more€probative€on€the€issue€of€ultimateÏguilt€than€prejudicial€to€the€defendantóó.€€McCormick,€òòEvidenceóó€ðð€271;€òòseeóó€Fed.Ð °  ÐR.€¢Evid£.€403.€€If€the€judge€finds€that€the€proposed€material€is€likely€to€lead€aÏreasonable€jury€to€infer€the€defendantððs€guilt€without€causing€him€substantialÏprejudice,€then€the€judge€may€allow€the€jury€to€consider€the€evidence€inÏreaching€a€verdict€as€to€the€charged€offense.€€If,€however,€the€inference€as€toÏultimate€guilt€is€weak€and€the€circumstantial€evidence€merely€tends€to€createÏin€the€minds€of€jurors€the€impression€that€the€defendant€is€of€questionableÏcharacter€and€has€a€propensity€for€bad€acts€and€probably€acted€accordingly€onÏthe€charged€occasion,€then€the€evidence€should€be€excluded.€€Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌÓR™ÓÓxªÓà8  àð ðWe€are€not€convinced€that€possession€of€a€wire€under€the€circumstances€inÏthis€case€is€a€ððsubstantial€stepðð€toward€making€an€escape.€€òòThere€are€too€manyÐ ° Ðother€possible€reasons€why€Bedford€could€have€been€in€possession€of€thatÏwireóó.€€While€we€doubt€that€the€wire€would€be€a€tool€for€intra-prison€workÐ ° Ðactivity,€we€do€accept€that€its€presence€could€lead€the€jury€to€other€inferencesÏabout€Bedford.€€The€jury€could€consider€it€as€a€weapon€and€view€Bedford€asÏbeing€violent,€or€could€see€defendant's€possession€of€the€wire€as€a€breaking€ofÏrules.€€Consequently,€it€could€view€Bedford€as€a€ððbad€manðð€for€breaking€suchÏa€rule.€Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àð ðBecauseòò€òòóóthe€possession€of€the€wire€is€so€equivocalóó,€we€hold€that€its€admissionÐ ° Ðinto€evidence€was€more€prejudicial€to€Bedford€than€probative€of€an€intent€toÏescape€and€should€have€been€excluded.€€It€was€reversible€error€to€admit€thisÏevidence.ðð€Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌòòId.óó€at€667„68,€566€A.2d€at€115.€€(emphasis€added).Ð °$  ÐÌÓbÓà  àThe€same€rationale€applies€with€equal,€if€not€greater€force,€to€the€petitionerððs€failureÏto€inquire.€€In€this€case,€the€petitionerððs€silence€or€failure€to€inquire€has,€at€best,€only€slightÏprobative€value,€but€its€prejudicial€effect€is€significant€and€unfair.€€The€jurors€may€have€beenÐ °*&& Ðinflamed€by€the€evidence€that€the€petitioner€did€not€show€an€interest€in€the€policeÏinvestigation€and,€therefore,€ignored€the€nonexisting,€or€weak,€link€between€the€failure€toÏinquire€and€a€consciousness€of€guilt.Ìà@ee(ìàIII.ˆÌà  àIn€light€of€our€holding€regarding€the€petitionerððs€consciousness€of€guilt,€we€need€notÏaddress€the€remaining€issue.€€As€indicated,€however,€we€will€exercise€our€discretion€andÏaddress€the€issue€for€the€guidance€of€the€trial€court€on€remand.€Ìà  àThe€petitioner€complains€that€the€trial€court€erroneously€admitted€evidence€of€theÏð ðstormyðð€relationship€between€the€petitioner€and€the€victim€to€prove€his€motive€to€commitÏthe€murder.€€He€argues€that,€because€there€was€no€direct€evidence€of€criminal€agency,€theÏtrial€court€improperly€permitted€the€State€to€introduce€testimony€that€on€July€30,€1985,€sevenÏmonths€prior€to€the€murder,€the€petitioner€and€the€victim€had€a€physical€dispute€and,€evenÏmore€inappropriately,€permitted€the€State€to€elicit€testimony€that€at€some€unspecified€dateÏthe€petitioner€hit€the€victim.€Ìà  àThe€State€argues€that€the€trial€court€properly€exercised€its€discretion€in€admitting€thisÏevidence,€contending€that€it€is€probative€of€the€nature€of€their€marital€relationship.€€CitingÐ °" ÐòòBurch€v.€Stateóó,€346€Md.€253,€270„71,€696€A.2d€443,€452,€òòcert.€deniedóó,€522€U.S.€1001,€118Ð °$  ÐS.€Ct.€571,€139€L.€Ed.€2d€410€(1997),€and€cases€from€other€jurisdictions,€it€denies€thatÏevidence€that€the€petitioner€responded€to€a€physical€attack€by€his€wife€or€engaged€in€a€mutualÏphysical€dispute€with€her€constitutes€prior€ð ðbad€acts€evidence.ðð€€It€argues,€however,€that,Ð °*&& Ðeven€if€tantamount€to€prior€bad€acts€evidence,€the€trial€court€exercised€appropriate€discretionÏin€admitting€the€evidence€on€a€question€by€question€basis,€to€show€motive,€identity€andÏagency€and€to€rebut€the€petitionerððs€claim€that€his€relationship€with€his€wife€was€great.€€Ìà@‚‚)ìàA.ˆÌà  àIn€addition€to€the€rules€discussed€òòsupraóó,€which€define€relevant€evidence€and€theÐ °  Ðgeneral€rules€which€govern€the€admissibility€of€relevant€evidence,€Maryland€Rule€5„404(b)€ÏÓÓlimits€the€admissibility€of€evidence€offered€to€prove€criminal€propensity.€€That€rule€provides:€ÌÓë«ÓÓ XÓÓ XÓÓ9²Óð ð(b)€€òòOther€crimes,€wrongs,€or€actsóó.-€Evidence€of€other€crimes,€wrongs,€or€actsÐ °  Ðis€not€admissible€to€prove€the€character€of€a€person€in€order€to€show€action€inÏconformity€therewith.€It€may,€however,€be€admissible€for€other€purposes,€suchÏas€proof€of€motive,€opportunity,€intent,€preparation,€common€scheme€or€plan,Ïknowledge,€identity,€or€absence€of€mistake€or€accident.ððÓ¬ÓÌÓ X‚¬ÓÓ Xt¬Óà  àAs€a€preliminary€matter,€€the€evidence€at€issue€in€this€case€falls€comfortably€withinÏthe€definition€of€ð ðother€wrongsðð€or€ð ðbad€acts.ðð€€See€òòÔ_Ô¢Klauenberg£Ô_Ô€v.€Stateóó,€355€Md.€528,€735Ð ° ÐÓÓA.2d€1061€(1999),€noting,€after€reviewing€cases€from€this,€and€other,€jurisdictions:Ìà8  àð ð[Ô_Ô¢T]he£Ô_Ô€general€theme€running€through€[the€case€law]€is€that€a€bad€act€is€anÏactivity€or€conduct,€not€necessarily€criminal,€that€tends€to€impugn€or€reflectÏadversely€upon€oneððs€character,€taking€into€consideration€the€facts€of€theÏunderlying€lawsuit.ððÐ Ð Ð  ÐÌÓy¯ÓòòId.óó€at€549.€€Thus,€evidence€is€inadmissible€if€offered€for€the€purpose€of€proving€criminalÐ °! Ðpropensity.€€òòSeeóó€òòÔ_Ô¢Merzbacher£Ô_Ô€v.€Stateóó,€346€Md.€391,€406,€697€A.2d€432,€440€(1997)€(notingÐ °# Ðthe,€ð ðrationale€for€the€rule€is€to€prevent€jury€from€punishing€defendant€for€having€ð ðcriminalÏpropensityðð);€òòÔ_Ô¢Ayers£Ô_Ô€v.€Stateóó,€335€Md.€602,€630,€645€A.2d€22,€35€(1994)€(reaffirmingÐ °'## Ðprinciple€that€ð ðevidence€of€a€defendantððs€prior€criminal€acts€may€not€be€introduced€to€proveÏguilt€of€the€offense€for€which€the€defendant€is€on€trialðð);€òòHarris€v.€Stateóó,€324€Md.€490,€496,Ð °+'' Ð597€A.2d€956,€960€(1991)€(holding€that€ð ð[Ô_Ô¢e]vidence£Ô_Ô€of€other€bad€acts€may,€however,€beÏadmissible€if€it€is€relevant€to€the€offense€charged€on€some€basis€òòotheróó€than€mere€propensityÐ ° Ðto€commit€crimeðð)€(emphasis€added);€òòJones€v.€Stateóó,€182€Md.€653,€656,€35€A.2d€916,€917Ð ° Ð(1944)€(opining€that€ð ðevidence€of€unconnected€and€unrelated€crimes€which€does€not€showÏknowledge,€motive,€intent,€a€common€scheme€or€identification€is€inadmissible€against€aÏdefendant€in€a€criminal€case€as€tending€to€show€that€he€committed€the€crime€whereof€heÏstands€indicted€in€such€caseðð).Ìà  àTo€be€admissible,€evidence€otherwise€Ô_Ô¢excludable£Ô_Ô€as€other€crimes€or€propensityÏevidence,€must€be€substantially€relevant€to€some€contested€issue€in€the€case€and€be€offeredÏfor€a€purpose€other€than€to€prove€the€criminal€character€of€the€defendant,€subject,€of€course,Ïto€the€balancing€requirement€of€Maryland€Rule€5„403.€€òòSeeóó€òòÔ_Ô¢Streater£Ô_Ô€v.€Stateóó,€352€Md.€800,Ð ° Ð806„07,€724€A.2d€111,€114€(1999);€òòWynn€v.€Stateóó,€351€Md.€307,€339„40,€718€A.2d€588,€604Ð ° Ð(1998);€òòState€v.€Tayloróó,€347€Md.€363,€368,€701€A.2d€389,€392€(1997);€òòTerry€v.€Stateóó,€332Ð ° ÐMd.€329,€334,€631€A.2d€424,€427€(1993).€€In€òòState€v.€Faulkneróó,€314€Md.€630,€634„35,€552Ð ° ÐA.2d€896,€898€(1989),€this€Court€established€a€three„step€test€for€evaluating€the€admissibilityÏof€other€ÓÓcrimes€evidence:Ìà8  àð ðWhen€a€trial€court€is€faced€with€the€need€to€decide€whether€to€admit€evidenceÏof€another€crime€--€that€is,€evidence€that€relates€to€an€offense€separate€fromÏthat€for€which€the€defendant€is€presently€on€trial€--€it€first€determines€whetherÏthe€evidence€fits€within€one€or€more€of€the€òòRossóó€[òòv.€Stateóó€276€Md.€664,€350Ð °&"" ÐA.2d€680€(1976)]€exceptions.€€That€is€a€legal€determination€and€does€notÏinvolve€any€exercise€of€discretion.€€òòSeeóó€òòCrossóó€[òòv.€Stateóó],€282€Md.[468]€at€474,Ð °($$ Ð386€A.2d€[757]€at€761[(1978€)];€òòMoore€v.€Stateóó,€73€Ô_Ô¢Md.App£Ô_Ô.€36,€44,€533€A.2dÐ °)%% Ð1,€5€(1987),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€311€Md.€719,€537€A.2d€273€(1988).ÓOºÓа*&&Ð Ð  ÐÓ2ÄÓà8  àð ðIf€one€or€more€of€the€exceptions€applies,€the€next€step€is€to€decide€whetherÏthe€accusedððs€involvement€in€the€other€crimes€is€established€by€clear€andÏconvincing€evidence.€€òò¢Lodowski£€v.€Stateóó,€302€Md.€691,€728,€490€A.2d€1228,Ð ° Ð1247€(1985),€òòdefendantððs€petition€for€cert.€deniedóó,€475€U.S.€1086,€106€S.€Ct.Ð ° Ð1469,€89€L.€Ed.€2d€725,€òòvacatedóó,€475€U.S.€1078,€106€S.€Ct.€1452,€89€L.€Ed.Ð ° Ð2d€711,€òòÔ_Ô¢revððd£Ô_Ô€on€other€groundsóó,€307€Md.€233,€513€A.2d€299€(1986);€òòCross,óóÐ °  Ð282€Md.€at€478,€386€A.2d€at€764.€€We€will€review€this€decision€to€determineÏwhether€the€evidence€was€sufficient€to€support€the€trial€judgeððs€finding.Ð Ð Ð  Ѐ€Ìà8  àð ðIf€this€requirement€is€met,€the€trial€court€proceeds€to€the€final€step.€€TheÏnecessity€for€and€probative€value€of€the€ððother€crimesðð€evidence€is€to€beÏcarefully€weighed€against€any€undue€prejudice€likely€to€result€from€itsÏadmission.€€òòCrossóó,€282€Md.€at€474,€386€A.2d€at€761€(internal€citationsÐ °  Ðomitted).€€This€segment€of€the€analysis€implicates€the€exercise€of€the€trialÏcourt's€discretion.€€òòId.óó;€òòMooreóó,€73€Ô_Ô¢Md.App£Ô_Ô.€at€44-45,€533€A.2d€at€5.ððаРР ÐÌÓ›½Óà  àOne€of€the€purposes€for€which€other€crimes€evidence€may€be€admitted€under€Rule€5„¼404(b)€is€to€prove€motive.€€Motive€is€the€catalyst€that€provides€the€reason€for€a€person€toÏengage€in€criminal€activity.€€òòSeeóó€òòBrown€v.€Stateóó,€359€Md.€180,€184,€753€A.2d€84,€86€(2000)Ð ° Ð(finding€that€purpose€of€murdering€pregnant€mistress€was€not€wanting€wife€to€discoverÏinfidelity);€òòWatkins€v.€Stateóó,€357€Md.€258,€261„62,€744€A.2d€1,€2„3€(2000)€(determining€thatÐ ° Ðpurpose€of€robbery€was€greed).€€ð ðLike€intent,€motive€is€a€mental€state,€the€proof€of€whichÏnecessarily€requires€inferences€to€be€drawn€from€conduct€or€extrinsic€acts.ðð€€òòSeeóó€òòJohnson€v.Ð °  ÐStateóó,€332€Md.€456,€471,€632€A.2d€152,€159€(1993).Ð °" Ðà  àMotive€is€not€an€element€of€the€crime€of€murder,€but,€in€addition€to€supporting€theÏintroduction€of€other€crimes€evidence,€it€also€may€be€relevant€to€the€proof€of€two€of€the€otherÏexceptions€to€Rule€5„404,€intent€or€identity.€€òòSeeóó€òòBryant€v.€Stateóó,€207€Md.€565,€586,€115Ð °($$ ÐA.2d€502,€511€(1955)€(allowing€evidence€of€convictions€to€be€admitted€because€it€showedÐ °*&& Ðappellantððs€behavior€toward€girl€whom€he€killed€only€a€month€later,€thus€tending€to€showÏmotive€and€intent);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòHarris€v.€Stateóó,€324€Md.€490,€501,€597€A.2d€956,€962€(1991)Ð ° Ð(noting€to€establish€motive€or€intent,€evidence€of€other€bad€acts€may€have€substantialÏrelevance);€òòFaulkneróó,€òòsupraóó,€314€Md.€at€634,€552€A.2d€at€898€(figuring€other€crimesÐ °  Ðevidence€ð ðmay€be€admitted€if€it€tends€to€establish€òòmotiveóó,€òòintentóó,€absence€of€mistake,€aÐ °  Ðcommon€scheme€or€plan,€òòidentityóó,€opportunity,€preparation,€knowledge,€absence€of€mistakeÐ °  Ðor€accidentðð)€(emphasis€added);€òòRoss€v.€Stateóó,€276€Md.€664,€669-70,€350€A.2d€680,€684Ð °  Ð(1976)€(holding€that€when€ð ðseveral€offenses€are€so€connected€in€point€of€time€orÏcircumstances€that€one€cannot€be€fully€shown€without€proving€the€other,ðð€then€evidence€ofÏother€bad€acts€is€admissible€to€show€motive).€€To€be€admissible€as€evidence€of€motive,Ïhowever,€the€prior€conduct€must€be€ð ðððcommitted€within€such€time,€or€show€such€relationshipÏto€the€main€charge,€as€to€make€connection€obvious,ðð€.€.€.€that€is€to€say€they€are€ððso€linked€inÏpoint€of€time€or€circumstances€as€to€show€intent€or€motive.ðððð€€òòJohnson€v.€Stateóó,€òòsupraóó,€332Ð ° ÐMd.€at€470,€632€A.2d€at€158-159,€òòquotingóó€òòBryant€v.€Stateóó,€207€Md.€at€586,€115€A.2d€at€511Ð ° Ðand€òòHarrison€v.€Stateóó,€276€Md.€122,€155,€345€A.2d€830,€849€(1975).Ð °  Ðà  àEvidence€of€previous€quarrels€and€difficulties€between€a€victim€and€a€defendant€isÏgenerally€admissible€to€show€motive.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòJones€v.€Stateóó,€182€Md.€653,€35€A.2d€916Ð °$  Ð(1944).€€In€that€case,€the€defendant€was€convicted€of€murdering€his€wife.€€On€appeal,€heÏargued€that€it€was€improper€for€the€trial€court€to€have€admitted€evidence€of€certain€violentÏacts€he€directed€toward€his€wife€during€the€course€of€their€marriage.€€Concluding€that€theÐ °*&& ÐÓÓevidence€was€admissible€for€reasons€other€than€propensity,€this€Court€pointed€out:Ìà8  àð ðIn€the€case€now€before€this€court,€the€evidence€presented,€the€subject€of€theseÏtwo€exceptions,€shows€a€long€course€of€ill€treatment€of€the€deceased€by€theÏaccused;€that€they€frequently€quarreled€and,€although€they€renewedÏrelationships€at€various€times,€there€was€almost€a€continuous€state€off€hostilityÏbetween€them.€€These€other€crimes€of€the€accused,€having€been€committed€onÏthe€same€person,€are€so€closely€connected€to€the€offense€charged€as€to€beÏevidence€as€to€the€intent€and€motive€of€the€accused€in€this€case.€€We€thereforeÏbelieve€that€the€trial€court€was€correct€in€admitting€this€evidence,€the€weightÏof€it€to€be€determined€by€the€jury.ððÐ Ð Ð  ÐÓÐÓÓÜÓÌòòId.óó€at€657,€35€A.2d€918.Ð °  ÐÌÓDÓÓà  àThe€petitioner€argues€that€the€present€case€is€distinguishable€from€òòJonesóó.€€HeÐ °  Ðmaintains€that€the€òòJonesóó€analysis€does€not€apply,€pointing€out€that,€in€this€case,€the€priorÐ ° Ðphysical€dispute€was€instigated€by€the€victim,€who€physically€attacked€the€petitioner,€afterÏthe€dispute,€the€petitioner€immediately€sought,€and€obtained,€an€òòexóó€òòparteóó€order€from€the€courtÐ ° Ðto€avoid€further€physical€disputes,€and€the€couple€had€reconciled€for€approximately€fourÏmonths€prior€to€the€murder.€€We€disagree.€Ìà  àThe€factors€which€the€petitioner€notes,€while€tending€to€prove€that€the€petitioner€wasÏnot€€the€aggressor€and€to€negate€the€probability€that€he€is€the€murderer,€do€not€affect€the€Ïadmissibility€of€the€evidence€to€prove€motive.€€Instead,€those€matters€more€properly€affectÏthe€weight€to€be€given€the€evidence.€€So€it€is€also€with€respect€to€the€reconciliation€of€theÏparties.€€As€noted€in€òòJonesóó,€reconciliation€does€not€change€the€fact€that€the€incident€occurredÐ °%!! Ðand€its€impact,€or€not,€should€€more€properly€be€left€to€the€determination€of€the€trier€of€fact.€Ïà  àOther€courts€that€have€had€opportunity€to€address€the€admissibility€of€evidence€ofÏdisharmony€in€the€household€as€probative€of€the€nature€of€a€marital€relationship€haveÐ °+'' Ðreached€similar€results.€€In€òòCommonwealth€v.€Chandleróó,€554€Pa.€401,€721€A.2d€1040€(1998),Ð ° Ðthe€defendant€was€convicted€of€possessing€an€instrument€of€crime,€as€well€as,€two€counts€ofÏfirst„degree€murder€for€killing€his€wife€and€sister„in„law.€€The€defendant€contended,€onÏappeal,€that€the€trial€court€abused€its€discretion€by€admitting€evidence€of€his€prior€abuse€ofÏÓÓhis€wife.€€The€Pennsylvania€Supreme€Court€disagreed,€opining€that:ÌÓ˜ÚÓÓ XÓÓ XÓÓÓð ð[Ô_Ô¢e]vidence£Ô_Ô€concerning€the€previous€relations€between€a€defendant€and€aÏvictim€is€relevant€and€admissible€for€the€purpose€of€proving€ill„will,€motiveÏor€malice.€.€.€.€€This€principle€applies€when€the€decedent€was€the€spouse€of€theÏaccused.€€Thus,€evidence€concerning€the€nature€of€the€marital€relationship€isÏadmissible€for€the€purpose€of€proving€ill„will,€motive€or€malice.€€ThisÏincludes,€in€particular,€evidence€that€the€accused€physically€abused€his€or€herÏspouse.€.€.€.€€Evidence€of€prior€abuse€is€also€admissible€if€it€is€ððpart€of€a€chainÏor€sequence€of€events€which€formed€the€history€of€the€case€and€was€part€of€itsÏnatural€development.ððÌÌ.€.€.€.ÌÌð ðThose€statements€were€admissible€under€the€ððstate€of€mindðð€exception€to€theÏhearsay€rule€because€decedents€opinion€of€defendant€and€her€marriage€to€himÏwent€to€the€presence€of€ill„will,€malice,€or€motive€for€the€killing.ðð¹Ó XÛÓÓ XÛÓÓÛÓÓÓÌÓßÓòòId.óó€at€409„11,€721€A.2d€at€1044„45€(internal€citations€omitted).Ð ° Ðà  àIn€òòCommonwealth€v.€¢Cormier£óó,€427€Mass.€446,€693€¢N.E.2d£€1015€(1998),€theÐ ° Ðdefendant€was€convicted€of€the€first€degree€murder€of€his€estranged€wife.€€He€contended,€onÏappeal,€that€the€evidence€of€prior€bad€acts„€several€incidents€in€which€the€defendantÏphysically€attacked€the€victim,€threatened€her,€or€expressed€to€a€third€party€his€desire€to€killÏher„€was€improperly€admitted.€€The€Supreme€Judicial€Court€of€Massachusetts€saw€itÏÓÓdifferently,€noting€that:ÌÓkáÓÓ XÓÓ XÓÓÓð ðððIt€is€well€settled€that€the€prosecution€may€not€introduce€evidence€that€aÏdefendant€has€previously€misbehaved,€indictably€or€not,€for€the€purposes€ofÐ °+'' Ðshowing€his€bad€character€or€propensity€to€commit€the€crime€charged,€butÏsuch€evidence€may€be€admissible€if€relevant€for€some€other€purpose.ðð€ÏððEvidence€of€a€hostile€relationship€between€a€defendant€and€his€spouse€mayÏbe€admitted€as€relevant€to€the€defendantððs€motive€to€kill€the€victim€spouse.ðð€ÏA€defendantððs€oral€threats€and€repeated€acts€of€violence€may€indicate€ððsettledÏill„will€towards€his€wife,€and€therefore€bear€directly€on€the€question€whetherÏthere€was€any€motive€for€him€to€commit€the€crime.ððððÌÌÓ X»áÓÓ X­áÓÓÉáÓòòId.óó€at€450,€693€¢N.E.2d£€at€1018€(internal€citations€omitted).€Ð °  Ðà  àThe€court€further€opined,€òòid.óó,€that€ð ð[Ô_Ô¢t]he£Ô_Ô€evidence€regarding€the€incidents€introducedÐ °  Ðin€this€case€was€directly€relevant€in€establishing€the€defendantððs€possible€motive€and€intentÏin€killing€his€wife.€€Such€evidence€was€especially€important€in€view€of€the€defendantððs€claimÏthat€he€killed€her€in€self„defense.ðð€€Moreover,€the€court€believed€€that,€ð ð[Ô_Ô¢t]he£Ô_Ô€judgeððs€limitingÏinstructions€reduced€the€possible€prejudicial€effect€of€this€evidence€[when€the€judge]Ïinstructed€the€jury€more€than€once€that€such€evidence€may€be€used€only€to€show€motive€orÏintent.ðð€€òòId.Ð ° Ðóóà  àAlso€to€the€same€effect€is€òòState€v.€¢Alford£óó,€257€Ô_Ô¢Kan£Ô_Ô.€830,€896€P.2d€1059€(1995).€€In€òòÐ ° Ðóóthat€case,€the€defendant€was€convicted€of€the€first€degree€murder€of€his€wife,€aggravatedÐ ° Ðkidnaping,€and€unlawful€possession€of€a€firearm.€€Rejecting€his€argument€that€admitting€hisÏwritten€statement€regarding€an€earlier€aggravated€battery€was€error€because€it€wasÏinadmissible€hearsay,€òòid.óó€at€840,€896€P.2d€at€1067,€the€Kansas€Supreme€Court€explained€thatÐ °$  ÐÓÓthe€State:òòÐ °&"" ÐÓ9êÓÓ XÓÓ XÓÓÓóóð ðsought€to€introduce€evidence€of€prior€aggravated€battery€to€show€discordÐ °'## Ðrather€than€to€prove€the€truth€of€the€matter€asserted.€€Evidence€of€a€discordantÏmarital€relationship€and€a€wifeððs€fear€of€the€husbandððs€temper€is€competent€asÏbearing€on€the€defendantððs€motive€and€intent.€.€.€.€€In€the€defendantððs€case,€theÏevidence€was€admissible€to€show€.€.€.€a€bearing€on€his€intent€to€kill€[his€wife].ððòòÐ °+'' ÐÓ X‘êÓÓ XƒêÓÓŸêÓòŽòÓÓÌóŽóÓ½ìÓId.óóÐ ° Ðà  àIn€the€case€òòsubóó€òòjudiceóó,€as€we€have€seen,€the€€evidence€consisted€of€the€July€30,€1985Ð ° Ðphysical€dispute€between€the€petitioner€and€the€victim,€testimony€that€€the€petitioner€and€theÏvictim€had€a€ð ðstormyðð€relationship,€and€testimony€from€a€friend€of€the€victim€concerning€aÏfight€the€night€before€the€murder€in€which€the€petitioner€allegedly€stated€that€the€victim€wasÏð ða€dead€woman.ðð€€Thus,€the€jury€heard€testimony€indicating€that€there€was€disharmony€in€theÏhousehold.€€That€evidence€€was€probative€of€a€continuing€hostility€and€animosity,€on€the€partÏof€the€petitioner,€toward€the€victim€and,€therefore,€€of€a€motive€to€murder,€not€simply€theÏpropensity€to€commit€murder.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×òòòŽòÐ ° Ðà  àóŽóóóThe€petitioner€also€claims€that€it€was€error€for€the€trial€court€to€admit€evidence€fromÐ ° Ðhis€daughter€regarding€incidents€in€which€she€observed€the€petitioner€hit€the€victim.€€CitingÏseveral€out€of€state€cases,€òòBarnes€v.€Commonwealthóó,€794€¢S.W.2d£€165€(Ô_ÔKyÔ_Ô.€1990);€òòFields€v.Ð ° ÐStateóó,€362€So.2d€1319,€1320€(Ala.€Ô_Ô¢Crim£Ô_Ô.€App.€1978);€òòÔ_Ô¢Roberson£Ô_Ô€v.€Stateóó,€339€So.€2d€104Ð ° Ð(Ala.€1976),€for€the€proposition€that€a€trial€judge€is€ð ðwithout€discretion€to€admit€a€statementÏthat€is€so€remote€as€to€time€or€circumstance€that€its€relevance€or€materiality€must€rest€inÏconjecture€and€speculation,ðð€òòseeóó€òòÔ_Ô¢Roberson£Ô_Ôóó,€339€So.€2d€at€104,€the€petitioner€argues€that€theÐ ° Ðtestimony€was€irrelevant€because€ð ð[Ô_Ô¢t]here£Ô_Ô€was€no€time€frame€provided€as€to€when€or€underÏwhat€circumstances€[the€petitioner]€hit€his€wife.ðð€€We€disagree.Ìà  àAlthough€this€Court€has€not€spoken€directly€on€this€issue,€several€of€our€sisterÏjurisdictions€have€had€the€opportunity€to€do€so.€€In€òòSimmons€v.€Stateóó,€266€Ga.€223,€466Ð °  ТS.E.2d£€205€(1996),€the€defendant€was€convicted€of€the€murder€of€his€ex„wife.€€RespondingÏto€the€defendantððs€argument€that€evidence€of€prior€difficulties€between€himself€and€his€ex„¼wife€was€improperly€admitted€because€they€were€remote€and€dissimilar€to€the€murder€forÏwhich€he€had€been€convicted,€the€Georgia€Supreme€Court,€applying€a€standard€of€reviewÏsimilar€to€the€three„pronged€test€articulated€in€òòFaulkneróó,€òòsupraóó,€concluded€that€a€ð ðlapse€ofÐ ° Ðeleven€years€between€a€prior€difficulty€and€the€crime€charged€does€not€necessarily€render€theÏevidence€inadmissible€as€a€matter€of€law.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€225,€466€¢S.E.2d£€at€209.€€The€lapse€of€timeÐ ° Ðwent€to€the€weight€and€credibility€of€the€testimony„€not€its€admissibility,€and€was,€thus,Ïð ðrelevant€to€the€issues€of€intent,€motive,€scheme,€and€bent€of€mind€.€.€.€.ðð€€òòId.óóà Ð àÐ °" Ðà  àòòState€v.€Ô_Ô¢Syriani£Ô_Ôóó,€333€N.C.€350,€428€¢S.E.2d£€118€(1993)€addressed€the€same€issue,Ð °$  Ðreaching€the€same€result.€€The€defendant€in€that€case€was€found€guilty€of€the€first„degreeÏmurder€of€his€wife.€€He€argued€on€appeal€that€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€admitted€evidenceÏshowing€that€he€had€a€history€of€physically€abusing€his€wife€and€children€and€that€suchÐ °*&& Ðð ðevidence€of€specific€instances€of€misconduct€toward€his€wife€and€children€[was€offered]Ïto€prove€[his]€character,€to€show€that€he€acted€in€conformity€therewith,€or€alternatively,€thatÏthe€incidents€were€too€remote€in€time,€some€more€than€two€years€prior€to€the€killing€.€.€.€toÏbe€admissible.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€376,€428€¢S.E.2d£€at€131.€€The€North€Carolina€Supreme€Court€held€thatÐ °  Ðevidence€of€prior€bad€acts,€in€the€form€of€testimony€by€the€defendantððs€children€aboutÏð ðdefendantððs€frequent€arguments€with,€violent€acts€toward,€separations€from,€reconciliationsÏwith,€and€threats€to€his€wife€were€admissible€under€[North€Carolina]€Rule€[of€Evidence]Ï404(b)€to€prove€.€.€.€lack€of€accident,€intent,€malice,€premeditation€and€deliberation„„Ïnotwithstanding€that€some€of€the€incidents€dated€back€to€the€beginning€of€the€marriage.ðð€€òòId.óóÐ ° Ðat€378,€428€¢S.E.2d£€at€132.€€The€court€found€support€in€its€past€decisions,€in€which€it€had€heldÏthat€ð ðwhen€a€husband€is€charged€with€murdering€his€wife,€the€State€may€introduce€evidenceÏcovering€the€entire€period€of€his€married€life€to€show€malice,€intent€and€ill€will€towards€theÏvictim.€€Specifically,€evidence€of€frequent€quarrels,€separations,€reconciliations€and€ill„¼treatment€is€admissible€as€bearing€on€intent,€malice,€motive,€premeditation€and€deliberation.ðð€ÏòòId.óó€at€377,€428€¢S.E.2d£€at€132.€Ð °  Ðà  àIn€the€case€òòsubóó€òòjudiceóó,€evidence€that€the€petitioner€hit€his€wife€was€not€too€remote€toÐ °" Ðlack€a€logical€relationship€to€motive.€€The€victimððs€child€at€the€time€of€her€motherððs€deathÏwas€thirteen€years€old.€€Therefore,€the€jury€heard€evidence€that,€at€least€during€the€lastÏthirteen€years,€events€occurred€which€may€have€led€to€a€motive€to€murder€his€wife.€€In€ourÏview,€the€incidents€are€logically€related€to€motive€ð ðto€show€that€the€accused€madeÐ °*&& Ðdeclarations€reflecting€on€his€wife,€the€deceased,€to€show€a€long€course€of€ill€treatment;€toÏshow€that€they€quarreled,€[and]€that€he€maltreated€her.ðð€€òòJones€v.€Stateóó,€òòsupraóó,€182€Md.€atÐ ° Ð656„57,€35€A.2d€at€918,€òòquotingóó€1€òòÔ_Ô¢Warton£Ô_Ôððs€Criminal€Evidenceóó€ðð€287€at€376€(11òòthóó€ed.€1935).€Ð ° ÐWhile€we€agree€that€a€trial€court€is€without€discretion€to€admit€a€statement€that€is€so€remoteÏas€to€time€that€its€relevance€or€materiality€must€rest€in€conjecture€and€speculation,€under€theÏcircumstances€of€this€case,€we€do€not€believe€the€trial€court€abused€its€discretion.€€Ìà  àYet,€even€if€we€agreed€with€the€petitioner€that€such€acts€are€not€admissible€to€proveÏmotive,€evidence€that€the€petitioner€hit€his€wife,€as€well€as€evidence€of€more€specificÏphysical€disputes,€are€admissible€as€rebuttal€evidence.€€In€this€case,€the€petitionerððs€attorneyÏduring€opening€statement€reiterated€the€petitionerððs€sworn€statement€to€the€police€that€theÏpetitionerððs€relationship€with€his€wife€was€ð ðgreat€and€getting€better,ðð€suggesting€that€it€wasÏimprobable€that€the€petitioner€murdered€his€wife.€€The€State€was€entitled€to€rebut€thatÏevidence.Ìà  àJudge€Ô_Ô¢Cathell£Ô_Ô€concurs€in€the€result€only.Ìà  àÌÌÓÓÒ°ÒJUDGMENT€ñ/;ñOF€THE€COURT€OFÏSPECIAL€APPEALS€ñ/;ñREVERSED.€ÏCASE€REMANDED€TO€THE€COURTÏOF€SPECIAL€APPEALS€WITHÏINSTRUCTIONS€TO€REVERSE€THEÏJUDGMENT€OF€THE€CIRCUIT€COURTÏFOR€BALTIMORE€COUNTY€ANDÏREMAND€THE€CASE€TO€THATÐ °+'' ÐCOURT€FOR€A€NEW€TRIAL.€€COSTSÏIN€THIS€COURT€AND€IN€THE€COURTÏOF€SPECIAL€APPEALS€TO€BE€PAIDÏBY€BALTIMORE€COUNTY.òòà Ð àÐ ° ÐòŽòòŽòÒ°ÒÌÌœ