Opinion ID: 2260527
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Balancing of Considerations in This Case

Text: In this case, the State offered the other crimes testimony in its case-in-chief. The first guideline in Getz requires the State to demonstrate the existence, or reasonable anticipation, of a material issue in this case. Getz v. State, 538 A.2d at 734. The State argued that evidence of the purchase and the subsequent use of cocaine by Howard and Gardiner was material to the conspiracy charge and necessary for a full understanding, by the jury, of all the indicted offenses. The trial judge agreed with that argument and concluded that the purchase and joint use of the drugs by Howard and Gardiner was material evidence of the conspiracy between them. The second requirement of Getz is that the evidence of other crimes be introduced for a purpose sanctioned by D.R.E. 404(b). Gardiner testified that he posed as the named payee on the forged checks because he understood he would share in the use of the cocaine purchased with the cash Howard received. The State argued that the evidence of the purchase and use of the cocaine was material to Howard's motive and plan in committing the July 10th and July 14th offenses. Two of the permissible purposes set forth in D.R.E. 404(b) for the admission of other crime evidence are plan and motive. The trial judge found that the passing of forged checks by Howard and Gardiner was motivated by their desire to purchase and consume cocaine. The trial judge also found that the drug related activities were an integral part of the check forging plan. The third guideline set forth in Getz requires the other crimes to be proved by evidence that is plain, clear, and conclusive. Gardiner was an eyewitness to and participant in the possession and use of cocaine. The trial judge properly ruled that Gardiner's testimony plainly, clearly and conclusively proved the other crimes. Gardiner's credibility was for the jury to assess. Tyre v. State, Del.Supr., 412 A.2d 326, 330 (1980). The fourth guideline in Getz is that the other crimes evidence not be remote in time to the crimes actually charged. In this case, the other crimes were not remote in time from the charged offenses. The other crimes occurred on the same day as each of the charged offenses. The fifth guideline in Getz calls upon the trial judge to balance the probative value of the other crime evidence offered by the State against the prejudice to the accused. In this case, the trial court balanced the prejudice to Howard of the evidence of drug possession and use against the probative value of that evidence to the State's case. The trial judge concluded that the purchase and use of the cocaine was relevant and material to the plan and motive of the conspiracy. The trial judge also determined that this evidence was necessary to the jury's understanding of the State's case. The final guideline in Getz requires a limiting instruction to the jury. The need for a limiting instruction, when evidence of prior crimes is admitted, was first identified in Getz and was subsequently made mandatory in Weber. [1] Even though Getz and Weber were both decided after Howard's trial, and operate prospectively, the judge in this case cautioned the jury with an appropriate limiting instruction, following his decision to admit the other crimes evidence. The limiting instruction helped to ensure a proper understanding of the evidence by the jury and to assure a fair trial in accordance with the requirements of due process. Weber v. State, 547 A.2d at 956. We find no abuse of discretion. The trial judge properly admitted the testimonial evidence of other crimes at Howard's trial. Therefore, the judgments of the Superior Court resulting in Howard's convictions are AFFIRMED.