|
FRE Rule 403. Excluding Relevant Evidence for Prejudice, Confusion, Waste of Time, or Other Reasons
FRE Rule 404. (b) Crimes, Wrongs, or Other Acts
- “[N]ot admissible to prove a person’s character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character.”
- Permitted use when the evidence is used to prove identity, intent, plan, and more.
- When permitted to use the judge must 1) hold a hearing outside the jury’s presence, 2) find the evidence be relevant and material, 3) find proof of the other crime clear and convincing, and 4) only admit when the evidence’s probative value outweighs its prejudicial effect.
On cross examination, the State questioned, over D’s objection, if he had “any contact with Eddie Abbott down in the woods that would cause him to go to the aid of his friend, Douggie?” and received a negative response. The State has argued that this question and D’s answer puts his credibility at issue and made the alleged prior crime relevant and admissible to prove D’s identity, modus operandi (plan), and explain why Abbott warned Case not to go into the woods and then went looking for them. Above all, Abbott’s testimony of an alleged crime that has not been decided on should not have been allowed in the first place for its prejudicial effect. Yet, the testimony was heard by the jury and the record shows no indication of the procedure the judge should have taken to decide the admissibility of such evidence.
If the evidence was properly examined, it would be found inadmissible. First, the identity of the D is not a question in this case. Stories of both sides, even that of Eddie Abbott, do not question the identity of D. Second, Doug has testified unequivocally that he was the one to ask D if he could accompany D to hunt in the woods. In which case, the intent of D to lure the alleged victim into the woods for criminal purposes no longer stands. Lastly, because D’s motive is not relevant to this trial, the common scheme or plan exception is also not available to support the admissibility of Abbott’s testimony. In their argument, State is confusing intent and motive with propensity and disposition to commit a crime.
Conclusion.
Judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals is affirmed and the case is remanded to the Criminal Court of Knox County for a new trial.
Class Notes
Character identification & Conflicting testimonies
1. D, 21 years old at the time of the alleged offense, attended a slow-learning school, educated to approximately the 10th grade level
- Testified in October or November 1979, went into the woods to check his muskrat traps and Case and Abbott followed him but committed no rape to them
- Denied he was with both or either of them in the woods during the time period that alleged crimes have been committed
- Never owned BB gun or a pellet gun
2. Abbott, occurred the first week of December, 1979
- Warned Case not to follow D into the woods and later followed their tracks in the snow and found D raping Case
- After the alleged rape, threatened by D to not tell anyone
3. Case, occurred after Christmas in 1979 or 1980, the first of January
- Raped at BB gun point
- Testified on direct examination that he asked D if he could accompany D to go hunting
- Proving the dissent judge and the State’s assumption that D lured Case into the woods to rape him wrong
- Neither of the alleged victim reported the offenses until August 1980
- Indictment charged D with aggravated rape occurring between December 1979 and April 1, 1980
- All 3, live in the same neighborhood and D used to play with neighborhood kids of a similar age
FRE 404 Character Evidence
Exception:
- Used to rebut D's testimony of oneself using an opposing evidence
- When a person testifies as a witness, the propensity of that witness to tell the truth becomes relevant
- Any party may attack credibility, or truthfulness, of a witness
- FRE 405 Methods of Proving Character: Reputation or Opinion & Specific Instances of Conduct
- Negligence suit
"Separate and Distinct Criminal Conduct" as one standard to dismiss relevancy of two similar criminal acts.
From the flow of the class, I learn to organize my thoughts and information from the case in a way anyone with no prior knowledge of the case can follow through and understand how the logical reasoning of the case proceeds. There cannot be jumps from the issue of the case to its reasoning. The facts of the case must first be established to go on to their relevant questions and the ultimate issue/question that this case must answer.
|