Opinion ID: 2588599
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Did the district court abuse its discretion when it admitted certain uncharged misconduct evidence?

Text: [¶ 8] The admissibility of evidence of uncharged misconduct must be determined within the confines of W.R.E. 404(b), which rule reads as follows: (b) Other crimes, wrongs, or acts.  Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show that he acted in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident .... The test that district courts must follow when determining the proper application of this rule and admissibility of uncharged misconduct evidence was adopted in Vigil v. State, 926 P.2d 351, 357 (Wyo.1996), holding modified by Howard v. State, 42 P.3d 483, 484 (Wyo.2002), and later articulated as follows: Admissibility under W.R.E. 404(b) is not limited to the purposes set forth in the rule, and we have adopted a liberal approach toward admitting uncharged misconduct evidence. The listed exceptions are illustrative rather than exclusive. Nevertheless, because uncharged misconduct evidence carries an inherent danger for prejudice, we have also adopted a mandatory procedure for testing its admissibility: (1) the evidence must be offered for a proper purpose; (2) the evidence must be relevant; (3) the probative value of the evidence must not be substantially outweighed by its potential for unfair prejudice; and (4) upon request, the trial court must instruct the jury that the similar acts evidence is to be considered only for the proper purpose for which it was admitted. We do not apply this test on appeal; rather, it is intended to be conducted by the trial court. .... For proper appellate review of the admissibility of evidence under W.R.E. 404(b), the record must reflect that the trial court required the State not only to identify the proper purpose for which uncharged misconduct evidence is being offered, but also to explain how or why it is probative, and why it is more probative than prejudicial .... To make sure there is no doubt in the future that this is a required process, we will repeat it now, in the body of this opinion: In determining the probative value of prior bad acts evidence, the trial court should consider the following factors: 1. How clear is it that the defendant committed the prior bad act? 2. Does the defendant dispute the issue on which the state is offering the prior bad acts evidence? 3. Is other evidence available? 4. Is the evidence unnecessarily cumulative? 5. How much time has elapsed between the charged crime and the prior bad act? Evidence is unfairly prejudicial if it tempts the jury to decide the case on an improper basis. In balancing against its probative value the unfair prejudice created by the evidence, the trial court should consider the extent to which the evidence distracts the jury from the central question whether the defendant committed the charged crime. The trial court should weigh these additional factors against the probative value of the evidence: 1. The reprehensible nature of the prior bad act. The more reprehensible the act, the more likely the jury will be tempted to punish the defendant for the prior act. 2. The sympathetic character of the alleged victim of the prior bad act. Again, the jury will be tempted to punish the defendant for the prior act if the victim was especially vulnerable. 3. The similarity between the charged crime and the prior bad act. The more similar the acts, the greater is the likelihood that the jury will draw the improper inference that if the defendant did it once, he probably did it again. 4. The comparative enormity of the charged crime and the prior bad act. When the prior act is a more serious offense than the charged crime, the introduction of that act will tend to place the defendant in a different and unfavorable light. 5. The comparable relevance of the prior bad act to the proper and forbidden inferences. Evidence of the prior bad act may be much more probative of bad character than it is of any legitimate inference permitted by Rule 404(b). 6. Whether the prior act resulted in a conviction. The jury may be tempted to punish the defendant if they believe he escaped punishment for the prior bad act. Gleason v. State, 2002 WY 161, ¶¶ 18, 27, 57 P.3d 332, 340, 342-43 (Wyo.2002) (citations omitted). [2] [¶ 9] Our standard of review when examining a district court's determination concerning the admissibility of uncharged misconduct evidence is as follows: We review claims of error concerning the improper admission of W.R.E. 404(b) evidence for abuse of discretion and will not reverse the trial court's decision absent a clear abuse. Thomas v. State, 2006 WY 34, ¶ 10, 131 P.3d 348, 352 (Wyo.2006). A trial court abuses its discretion when it could not have reasonably concluded as it did. Id. In this context, reasonably means sound judgment exercised with regard to what is right under the circumstances and without being arbitrary or capricious. Id. Bromley v. State, 2007 WY 20, ¶ 8, 150 P.3d 1202, 1206-07 (Wyo.2007). Even if we determine that a district court abused its discretion in improperly allowing admission of uncharged misconduct evidence, and thus the evidence was admitted in error, we must also determine whether the error was prejudicial. Solis v. State, 981 P.2d 34, 36 (Wyo.1999). Error is prejudicial if there is a reasonable possibility that the verdict might have been more favorable to the defendant if the error had not been made. Vigil v. State, 2010 WY 15, ¶ 11, 224 P.3d 31, 36 (Wyo.2010). [¶ 10] Prior to trial, the appellant filed a demand for notice of the State's intent to use uncharged misconduct evidence, and the appropriate hearing was held. Following the hearing, the district court issued a decision letter specifically addressing each item of uncharged misconduct evidence. The district court excluded certain items proffered by the State; however, it also determined that much of the uncharged misconduct evidence noticed by the State would be admissible. [¶ 11] The appellant now argues that [t]he introduction of 404(b) evidence is but a smokescreen to have evidence of Mr. Rolle's propensity to assault women and men and otherwise be a person with violent tendencies and consequently he should be convicted of first degree murder. While the appellant makes broad assertions of error and discusses the general dangers associated with the admission of uncharged misconduct evidence, in his appellate argument he only specifically takes exception to the testimony of one individualD.G. D.G. was one of the appellant's former girlfriends. In his brief, the appellant claims: In this case the prejudice is so clear that the jury could generalize from the testimony of just [D.G.] that [the appellant] is prone to violence and is highly and physically abusive, although her testimony would suggest only when drinking. Such testimony infers violent predisposition because which [sic] effectively negates the presumption of innocence. [¶ 12] The State responds that the district court took great care to analyze every piece of evidence individually under the Gleason /Vigil test, relying heavily on prior precedent that recognized similar evidence as admissible under 404(b). The State then argues that if the authority relied upon by the district court is still good today, then surely the district court did not abuse its discretion by following that precedent. [¶ 13] In order to determine whether the district court abused its discretion in allowing D.G.'s testimony, we must examine the nature of the testimony as presented to the district court. The appellant did not object at trial to the admission of D.G.'s testimony, therefore we will examine the testimony as proffered in the State's Notice of Intent to Offer Evidence Pursuant to Rule 404(b). Before examining the proffer, we note that with the exception of evidence the district court refused to allow, D.G.'s in-court testimony was consistent with the State's proffer. The State described D.G.'s proposed testimony as follows: [D.G.] was in an intimate relationship with [the appellant] from February, 1992 to February, 1994 and again from approximately December of 1994 to December of 1995. In interviews with police, [D.G.] described an incident during the first time she was with [the appellant] when she and [the appellant] had been at a local business when a man who had hung a door for her said hello to her. [The appellant] went into a jealous rage and assaulted the man for no apparent reason. In the summer of 1993, [the appellant] became angry when he had been drinking because [D.G.] and her children would not ride with him. While at [D.G.]'s home he grabbed her by the neck and began choking her then pushed her into the bathtub causing her to strike her head. On January 13, 1994, [D.G.] became involved in an argument with [the appellant]. [The appellant] repeatedly told [D.G.] to hit him. She did eventually and then [the appellant] called the police. As [D.G.] left the room, [the appellant] punched her in the back of the head. [A police officer] responded to the call and arrested both of the parties and found a knot on the back of [D.G.]'s head. [The appellant] was convicted of battery but the conviction was reversed due to technical issues with the charging document. Thereafter, [the appellant] entered a plea of guilty to the charge and adopted the supporting documents in the case as factual basis. [The appellant] admitted during the trial that he had pushed [D.G.] but could not explain how a push resulted in a goose egg on the back of [D.G.]'s neck. Attachment 25. [D.G.'s] ... son, saw [the appellant] punch her in the back of the head. He also observed that [the appellant] was often verbally abusive to both himself and [D.G.]. See Attachment 26. [D.G.] would also testify that during times they were apart [the appellant] would destroy her property. There was insufficient evidence at the time to prosecute but [the appellant] later admitted to [D.G.] that he was responsible for the damage. Jennifer Randel experienced similar problems with [the appellant] throughout their relationship. On February 25, 1994, and on other occasions, [the appellant] contacted [D.G.] in violation of court orders. She reported further damage to her vehicles on February 18, 1996, and reported that [the appellant] had admitted past acts of vandalism. See Attachment 27. The second incident occurred just after she had applied for an order of protection similar to Randel's. He left notes in a mailbox calling her a slut. He harassed her when she was out in public. Finally, in December of 1995, he began cursing her and finally kicked her out of the car on the interstate. He then proceeded to drive the vehicle at her and the children.... Even his dog wasn't exempt from [the appellant]'s abuse. He would beat the dog until it bled. [D.G.] report[ed] instances of verbal and physical abuse, as well as property destruction in the 1996 affidavit. To this day, [D.G.] is terrified by [the appellant]. The State argued for the admissibility of D.G.'s testimony as follows: The [appellant] is fond of portraying Jennifer Randel as a crazy woman who he was victimized by on multiple occasions.... However, the [appellant]'s claims of being the victim of Randel as the first aggressor and his claim of accident make his relationships with other women particularly relevant to intent, motive and lack of mistake. In fact, this is how [the appellant] has presented himself since 1989 in his relationships.... .... More specifically regarding D.G.'s testimony, the State contended: The similarities between the situations and Jennifer Randel and [D.G.] are persuasive evidence of [the appellant]'s motive and intent as well as a clear repudiation of his ridiculous story that he is somehow a victim and that his murder of Jennifer Randel was an accident.... [D.G.] described how [the appellant] would provoke an attack so he could strike back. [¶ 14] The district court addressed the admissibility of D.G.'s proposed testimony in its decision letter: The State of Wyoming's notices and supplemental notices of uncharged misconduct evidence also includes a listing of evidence concerning relationships of [the appellant] with women other than Jennifer Randel, and instances of threats, assaults, and destruction of property allegedly perpetrated by [the appellant] against those women. The other crimes, wrongs, or acts listed in this category are reported to have occurred from 1989 to 1996. The listed evidence includes a variety of conduct attributable to [the appellant], with several of the incidents lacking facts comparable to the alleged kidnapping and homicide in this case, but a number of incidents being factually comparable to the alleged events of November 2007 involving Jennifer Randel. Evidence of specific acts of violence may generally be admissible in a homicide case. Buhrle v. State, 627 P.2d 1374, 1380 (Wyo. 1981). In the case of Johnson v. State, 936 P.2d 458, 465 (Wyo.1997), evidence of a defendant's prior assault of a live-in girlfriend was held to be probative of the charged assault on a current girlfriend because it suggested that he was violent toward the women with whom he lived. Perhaps even more applicable to the situation hereunder review, is the case of Moore v. State, [2003 WY 153, ¶¶ 18-23,] 80 P.3d [191,] 196-197 [(Wyo.2003)], wherein the Wyoming Supreme Court held that evidence of a defendant's prior abuse of a kidnapping victim was admissible to show that the defendant intended to control the actions of the victims and that he was capable of carrying out the threats he made to his victims. Finally, it is noted that case law indicates that uncharged misconduct directed toward a previous wife may be admitted for a proper purpose when the assaultive conduct is comparable to the situation for which the defendant is standing trial. Sandy v. State, 870 P.2d 352, 357 (Wyo.1994). Although the above-cited legal authorities generally support the allowance of uncharged misconduct evidence similar to that noticed in the third category hereunder review, it is still necessary that the proper analysis be undertaken pursuant to Rule 404(b) of the Wyoming Rules of Evidence. In making the required analysis, the court is mindful of dangers of admitting such evidence and skeptical of its necessity, but should be willing to admit it when it is offered for a proper purpose that is material and not unduly prejudicial. Solis v. State, 981 P.2d 28, 37 [30] (Wyo. 1999). The prosecution asserts that the noticed evidence of other wrongs, crimes or acts in the designated third category is offered to show motive, intent, course of conduct, and to rebut any claim of mistake or accident. The court would agree that the identified acts, as summarized in the State of Wyoming's notices concerning evidence of [the appellant]'s assaults on other women are proposed for introduction for proper purposes. The use of such evidence concerning a defendant's relationship with other women has been introduced in Wyoming cases for such purposes. Kenyon v. State, [2004 WY 100, ¶ 24,] 96 P.3d 1016, 1026 (Wyo.2004); and Wilson v. State, 14 P.3d 912, 918 (Wyo.2000). More specifically, as noted in the case of Johnston [ Johnson ] v. State, 936 P.2d 458 (Wyo.1997), evidence of domestic conflict may be proper to show motive regarding the charged crimes. In any event, the noted instances of [the appellant]'s threats, assaults, and destruction of property directed towards other women are offered for proper purposes in this case. As with the testing of the other categories of noticed uncharged misconduct evidence in this case, it is necessary for the court to determine whether that evidence is more probative than prejudicial considering the Gleason factors. The following is this court's analysis in evaluating the probative value of the noticed other acts evidenced in this category and the weighing of the additional facts against the probative value of such evidence: a. Factors re: Probative Value of Prior Acts Evidence. 1. How clear is it that the defendant committed the prior acts? It is clear that there is proposed direct testimony to indicate that [the appellant] committed the uncharged misconduct in this category. The submittals of the prosecution assert that testimony will be presented by eye witnesses to the listed incidents. Additionally, there are corroborative statements and documentation of several of the prior acts listed by the State of Wyoming in this category. 2. Does the defendant dispute the issue on which the State is offering the prior acts evidence? It does appear that the defense disputes the issues of intent, motive, and absence of mistake or accident upon which the State of Wyoming is offering the noticed other acts evidenced in this category. 3. Is other evidence available? As previously noted, there is some other proposed evidence relating to the issues of intent, motive, and absence of mistake or accident, but it is difficult to quantify such other evidence based upon the information provided. 4. Is the evidence unnecessarily cumulative? Some of the proposed evidence in this category may be cumulative to some degree, but it would not appear that the evidence as outlined in the State of Wyoming's listing would be unnecessarily cumulative. 5. How much time has elapsed between the charged crime and the prior acts? The prior acts in this category occurred between 1989 to 1999.... The alleged assaultive behavior of [the appellant] directed at [D.G.] is alleged to have occurred in the time frame from 1993 to 1995.... With the exception of the alleged assaultive behavior of 1989, it does not appear that the subject acts in this category are overly remote to the charged crime in this case. b. Additional Facts to Weigh Against the Probative Value of the Prior Acts Evidence. 1. The reprehensible nature of the prior acts. The noticed uncharged misconduct evidence in this category would be classified as reprehensible in nature. Several of the noticed factual matters, however, would not be of such seriousness to conclude that a jury would be tempted to punish the defendant for such other acts. An exception to this finding would be the reprehensible nature of the allegations relating to [the appellant]'s conviction for possession of a sawed-off rifle in the State of Montana given the alarming nature of such offense. 2. The sympathetic character of the alleged victim of the prior acts. There would be some component of sympathy relative to the alleged victims of the noticed 404(b) evidence in this category. 3. The similarity between the charged crimes and the prior acts. There are several similarities between the alleged other acts and the identified evidence in the events surrounding the kidnapping and homicide charged in this case. Such similarities include the allegations of [the appellant]'s assaultive behavior, threatening statements, and violation of protective orders. Several of the asserted prior acts in this category, however, including [the appellant]'s description of [his ex-wife], the alleged assault of [the appellant] on a door repairman that said hello to [D.G.], and the alleged abuse by [the appellant] of his dog, would not have any substantial similarity to the charged crimes in this case. 4. The comparative enormity of the charged crimes and the prior acts. The alleged prior acts in this category are substantially less serious than the charged crimes in this case. 5. The comparative relevance of the prior acts to the proper and forbidden inferences. Generally, the proposed uncharged misconduct evidence in this category is comparably relevant to the proper and legitimate purposes of proving motive, intent, and absence of mistake or accident. Exceptions to this finding would be the noticed evidentiary items concerning [the appellant]'s description of [his ex-wife], the alleged assault of [the appellant] on a door repairman that said hello to [D.G.], and the alleged abuse by [the appellant] of his dog, which matters would appear to have little comparative relevance. 6. Whether the prior acts resulted in a conviction. The identified January 13, 1994 assault upon [D.G.], and the 1999 possession of a sawed-off rifle in violation of an order of protection issued to [another ex-girlfriend] are identified to have resulted in convictions. None of the other noticed crimes, wrongs, or acts in this category resulted in any identified conviction. Giving consideration to the above-listed factors, the court concludes that with the exceptions hereinafter noted, the evidence of [the appellant]'s relationships with [two other individuals], and [D.G.], including instances of threats, assaults, and destruction of property, as set forth in the State of Wyoming's Rule 404(b) notices meets the admissibility requirements under 404(b) of the Wyoming Rules of Evidence. [¶ 15] As can be seen, the district court earnestly endeavored to apply the Gleason /Vigil test. It appears that the district court carefully examined and considered the proffered evidence, and then clearly and specifically stated that the evidence was properly admissible to show motive, intent, course of conduct, and to rebut any claim of mistake or accident. [3] Additionally, in making that determination, the district court relied upon a number of cases wherein this Court determined that similar evidence was properly admissible. Finally, the district court addressed the relevance and probative value of the evidence by examining those concepts within the framework established in our prior precedent. [¶ 16] The appellant does not claim that a procedural error occurred in the admission of the uncharged misconduct evidence. Also, the appellant does not refute (or even discuss) any of the cases cited by the district court or otherwise assert that the evidence was not admitted for a proper purpose. In fact, other than the general allegation quoted above regarding the prejudicial effect of the admission of D.G.'s testimony, the appellant undertakes no specific relevancy or prejudicial effect analysis. See supra ¶ 11. [¶ 17] Our task in reviewing a district court's decision on the admissibility of uncharged misconduct evidence is to determine whether the district court abused its discretion, not to apply the Gleason /Vigil test anew. Gleason, 2002 WY 161, ¶ 18, 57 P.3d at 340 (We do not apply this test on appeal; rather, it is intended to be conducted by the trial court.). When reviewing for an abuse of discretion, we are bound by the principle that as long as there exists a legitimate basis for the trial court's ruling, that ruling will not be disturbed on appeal. Leyva v. State, 2007 WY 136, ¶ 17, 165 P.3d 446, 452 (Wyo.2007) (quoting Sanchez v. State, 2006 WY 116, ¶ 20, 142 P.3d 1134, 1140 (Wyo. 2006)). It is well established that deference is given to a trial judges rulings as to the admissibility of evidence; as long as there is some reasonable basis for his conclusions, this court will not second-guess him on appeal. Hopkinson v. State, 632 P.2d 79, 101 (Wyo.1981). [¶ 18] Our review of the analysis undertaken and authority relied upon by the district court, as set forth in its decision letter, convinces us that the district court had a legitimate and reasonable basis for its ruling on the admissibility of [D.G.]'s testimony, as well as the other proposed evidence of uncharged misconduct. Thus, we conclude that the uncharged misconduct evidence admitted in this case was admitted for one or more proper purpose under W.R.E. 404(b), that the district court adequately performed the pretrial analysis required by Gleason and Vigil to determine the relevance of the evidence, and that the district court properly balanced the probative nature of the evidence against its potential for unfair prejudice. The district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the evidence.