Defendant, Peter Kotsimpulos, a federal meat inspector, was charged and convicted of stealing pork from a grocery store's meat plant by the Plaintiff, State of Maine. Kotsimpulos appealed on the sole issue of evidence being excluded concerning a Hannaford Brothers supervisor wanting the defendant terminated as a federal meat inspector. Surveillance had been set up due to ongoing meat disappearances at the plant. Footage of the defendant moving back and forth between his car and the plant was discovered, and he was found in possession of 5 pork tenderloins in his jacket pocket. The defendant claimed that a supervisor at the grocery store named Carver had framed him in this theft. He alleged that Carver threatened him by saying he would ensure that Kotsimpulos was fired from his job as a meat inspector and then framed him to assure this termination. The defendant's counsel attempted to enter testimony of this alleged threat into evidence to warrant reasonable doubt as to Kotsimpulos's guilt. The issue here is whether the trial court can exclude relevant evidence if the risk of confusing the jury substantially outweighs the evidence's probative value, and the answer is yes. The trial court excluded this testimony on the grounds of irrelevance and that the potential to confuse the jury significantly outweighed its probative value. There was no evidence that Carver had partaken in the defendant's surveillance, apprehension, or of him planting the pork loins in Kotsimpulos's car