It's been a quiet couple of weeks at SCOV, which works out because I've had the 'vid since last Wednesday.
One opinion on Friday, October 4, 2024.
In general, evidence of prior bad acts is not admissible in evidence to "prove the character of a person in order to show that the person acted in conformity therewith." But it can be admissible to show "motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident." That's the issue in this case.
Defendant was charged with cruelty to a child based on unexplained injuries to his girlfriend's child. He was convicted after a jury trial. At trial, based on a pretrial ruling, the prosecution introduced evidence of a 2012 incident for which defendant was convicted of a similar charge. Another, earlier similar incident was excluded because there was no conviction and the trial court found that the probative value of the proposed evidence was substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect. The trial court gave an instruction on how the prior-conviction evidence could be used, noting that it could only be used as evidence of defendant's state of mind or intent, not as evidence that because defendant had been convicted in the past of a similar offense that he was more likely guilty this time too.
A brief aside. Sometimes there seems to be a disconnect between the rules of evidence, exceptions, and the dynamics of human and group decision making. It is very difficult for a human being to use evidence only for the limited purpose for which it is offered. We aren't wired that way. Even lawyers and judges, who are inundated in these okay-for-this-but-not-for-that concepts have trouble drawing those lines. Nonetheless, we suppose an ability to do so and base legal analysis on the same. But, as so often is the case, I digress.
The jury convicted defendant. He appeals.
On appeal, because the issue was not preserved below, we're in plain-error territory. SCOV reasons that the "evidence was relevant and was used for a legitimate purpose" in this case, specifically to prove motive or intent. SCOV rejects defendant's argument that intent was not relevant because he didn't assert mistake or accidental injury as a defense. SCOV reasons that the prosecution still had to prove that defendant acted willfully and the evidence was relevant to that end. SCOV similarly rejects defendant's argument that the evidence was irrelevant because it involved a different child.
On the weighing-of-probative-value point, SCOV declines to find plain error, reasoning that defendant does not demonstrate that the admission of the evidence was prejudicial and that it was but a small piece of four days of evidence.
Accordingly, SCOV affirms defendant's conviction. State v. Nicholas, 2024 VT 62.
Comments
Post a Comment