testimony. The court has reviewed the testimony noted, and overrules all objections based upon relevance, but for the following, which are sustained: Rita Ormasa — page 4 line 11 to page 5 line 1. John A. Blumenfeld — page 18 line 1 to page 24 line 5. Mark Snoeyenbos — page 3 line 11 to page 4 line 15, and page 36 line 6 to page 44 line 6. Carolyn G. Glah — page 88 line 25 to page 89 line 4, and page 94 lines 12 through 15, and page 111 line 18 to page 115 line 6. Additionally, defendants have made several objections based on hearsay, and have referred the court to “Motion in Limine # 3.” The court has denied defendant’s third motion in limine, and overrules the hearsay objections as well. See Jordache Enterprises, Inc. v. Hogg Wyld, Ltd., 828 F.2d 1482, 1487 and n. 4 (10th Cir.1987) (<HOLDING>). Defendants have objected to the entire
holding that an effort to intimidate a witness is relevant to the issue of the defendants state of mind and admissible under rule 404b holding that victims statements were hearsay admissible under the state of mind exception to the hearsay rule and constitutionally permissible under ohio v roberts citations omitted holding that evidence of customer inquiries is admissible under the state of mind exception to the hearsay rule holding that the admission of evidence under an exception to the hearsay rule is reviewed for abuse of discretion holding victims statements admissible under state of mind exception to rebut defendants claim of accident andor suicide