Opinion ID: 2616021
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Evidence of Other Criminal Transactions.

Text: The petitioner also argues that the trial court erroneously permitted Wilson to testify regarding his conversation with the petitioner, in which he stated his knowledge that Whitehorse had some of the best dope in town. He contends that the testimony related to criminal acts separate and distinct from the crime for which he was on trial, was highly prejudicial, and therefore was inadmissible. We do not agree. Subject to certain exceptions, evidence of wholly independent criminal acts committed by a defendant is generally inadmissible to prove his guilt of the crime charged. E.g., People v. Geller, 189 Colo. 338, 540 P.2d 334 (1975). In this case, however, the challenged testimony simply related the conversation which constituted part of the petitioner's attempt to procure and dispense the drugs in his clothing. Wilson's statement did not actually relate any other specific criminal transactions. In any event the statement in question was the means chosen by the petitioner to identify himself to Wilson as a known drug supplier. This identification by reputation was inextricably interwoven with the other evidence showing that the petitioner knew his clothing concealed contraband narcotics. As such it was directly connected to the chain of events leading to the criminal act charged in the information. Therefore, even though the testimony may have suggested the petitioner's involvement in other criminal activity, it was admissible under the circumstances here presented. People v. Geller, supra . See also People v. Manier, 184 Colo. 44, 518 P.2d 811 (1974). Accordingly, the judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed.