Opinion ID: 1494221
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: MacIntyre's Gun Purchase

Text: On direct examination, MacIntyre testified that, on two occasions, Capano asked her to purchase a gun for him and that she eventually did so in May 1996. [270] On appeal, Capano argues that MacIntyre's testimony about the gun purchase is inadmissible under the rule articulated by this Court in Farmer v. State. [271] More specifically, he contends that this testimony is inadmissible because: (1) there is no evidence that the gun was involved in Fahey's death and (2) the jury may improperly infer that possession of a gun indicates a disposition to use it. [272] The State responds that the suspicious nature of the purchase is probative evidence that Capano planned to murder Fahey. The trial court agreed with the State and permitted MacIntyre to testify on this issue. [273] In Farmer, the Court held that a gun found in the defendant's house was inadmissible because the State had no evidence connecting that gun or that type of gun to the shooting with which the defendant was charged. [274] The Farmer Court recognized that the admission of a gun into evidence may be unfairly prejudicial to the defendant where admission of the gun serves only to support an inference that the defendant had a gun available to him at the time of the shooting. [275] In contrast, the State's case against Capano of a planned homicide depends on evidence that he was assembling the wherewithal to commit a homicide. [276] And the suspicious nature of his use of MacIntyre to purchase the gun for him is probative evidence of this planning. Although neither side produced evidence indicating that the gun purchased by MacIntyre was involved in Fahey's death, MacIntyre's gun purchase for Capano is nevertheless independently relevant to prove that he had the gun purchased as part of a plan to murder Fahey and that he sought to cover his tracks by ensuring that he was not the registered owner of the gun. The issue, of course, is whether the jury will infer from this transaction that Capano is a bad person because he purchased a gun illegally or that Capano possessed a gun and therefore used it to murder Fahey. In Getz v. State, [277] this Court established six requirements for the admission of evidence of a defendant's prior bad acts. The evidence of prior bad acts must be: (1) material to an ultimate issue; (2) admissible under D.R.E. 404(b); (3) proved by clear and convincing evidence; (4) not too remote from the crime charged; (5) not unfairly prejudicial under D.R.E 403; and (6) accompanied by a limiting instruction. Because MacIntyre's transaction is probative evidence of planning, the dispute centers on the last two Getz elements. [278] The first question is whether the danger of unfair prejudice substantially outweighs the probative value of the evidence under D.R.E. 403. Although there is a danger of improper jury inferences from Capano's possession of a gun, we find that this risk does not substantially outweigh the probative value of the evidence  particularly in view of the discretion accorded the trial court to decide these issues. [279] Under the final Getz prong, the parties agree that the trial court failed to give a limiting instruction for MacIntyre's testimony. The State suggests, however, that Capano agreed at trial that no such instruction was necessary. The office conference discussions on this point are not crystal clear, but it appears that defense counsel wanted to wait until MacIntyre testified before proposing a limiting instruction. [280] Defense counsel did not repeat its request later, apparently because counsel thought that an instruction was not necessary. [281] Under these circumstances, we conclude that the trial court's decision to admit MacIntyre's testimony without an instruction did not constitute an abuse of discretion under Getz.