The appellant, Jeffrey Mitchell, appealed his convictions for two counts of threatening death and his 90-day conditional sentence and two years probation.
The convictions stemmed from text messages sent to his former wife and her new partner, and a stick figure decal on his truck.
The appellant argued the trial judge improperly relied on propensity evidence, failed to apply the W.(D.) analysis, misapprehended evidence, and applied uneven scrutiny.
He also sought to introduce fresh evidence regarding his dyslexia and reliance on voice-to-text.
The Superior Court dismissed both the conviction and sentence appeals, finding the propensity evidence admissible for context, the W.(D.) principles correctly applied (evidenced by an acquittal on one count), no misapprehension of evidence, and no uneven scrutiny.
The fresh evidence application was denied due to lack of cogency and insufficient explanation for its late introduction.
The sentence was deemed reasonable and not manifestly unfit.
