Opinion ID: 2543729
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Admissibility of Other Crimes or Civil Wrongs Independent of K.S.A. 60-455

Text: K.S.A. 60-455 provides: Subject to K.S.A. 60-447 evidence that a person committed a crime or civil wrong on a specified occasion, is inadmissible to prove his or her disposition to commit crime or civil wrong as the basis for an inference that the person committed another crime or civil wrong on another specified occasion but, subject to K.S.A. 60-445 and 60-448 such evidence is admissible when relevant to prove some other material fact including motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity or absence of mistake or accident. (Emphasis added.) Under the plain and unambiguous language of the statute, evidence of prior crimes or civil wrongs cannot be admitted to prove a criminal defendant's propensity to commit the charged crime, but it can be admissible when relevant to prove some other material fact. K.S.A. 60-455. Current case law requires certain safeguards. Before K.S.A. 60-455 evidence can be admitted, the district judge must determine that it is relevant to prove one of the eight material facts listed in the statute, that the material fact is disputed, and that the probative value of the evidence outweighs its potential for producing undue prejudice. See, e.g., State v. Drennan, 278 Kan. 704, 716-18, 101 P.3d 1218 (2004). In addition, we have required trial judges to give a limiting instruction informing the jury of the specific purpose for admission whenever K.S.A. 60-455 evidence comes in. See, e.g., State v. Wilkerson, 278 Kan. 147, 153, 91 P.3d 1181 (2004). These safeguards are designed to eliminate the danger that the evidence will be considered to prove the defendant's mere propensity to commit the charged crime. Without these kinds of safeguards, we have recognized that at least three types of prejudice can follow from the admission of other crimes and civil wrongs evidence: ` . . . First a jury might well exaggerate the value of other crimes as evidence proving that, because the defendant has committed a similar crime before, it might properly be inferred that he committed this one. Secondly, the jury might conclude that the defendant deserves punishment because he is a general wrongdoer even if the prosecution has not established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in the prosecution at hand. Thirdly, the jury might conclude that because the defendant is a criminal, the evidence put in on his behalf should not be believed.' State v. Davis, 213 Kan. 54, 58, 515 P.2d 802 (1973). In this case, the testimony of Adriano and Malin about the previous violent incident or incidents between Sharp and Gunby was relevant to prove motive, intent, and lack of mistake or accident, all material facts listed in the statute. See State v. Anicker, 217 Kan. 314, Syl. ¶ 1, 536 P.2d 1355 (1975) (evidence of prior physical mistreatment of wife introduced to show motive and intent); State v. Patterson, 200 Kan. 176, Syl. ¶ 2, 434 P.2d 808 (1967) (same). All were directly in issue. Indeed, the challenged testimony ran directly contrary to the defense theory of the case, i.e., that Sharp's death occurred because Gunby was high and the strangulation was an unintentional, unexpected, and accidental artifact of rough sex. Compare State v. Sexton, 256 Kan. 344, 350-51, 886 P.2d 811 (1994) (evidence that defendant had engaged in sexual bondage with former wife relevant, admissible to show deliberate, rather than accidental, strangulation of girlfriend). As long as the prejudicial effect of the evidence did not outweigh its probative value, the district judge could have elected to admit the testimony under K.S.A. 60-455. Had he done so, a proper limiting instruction should have been given. Under these circumstances, Gunby challenges the fairness of permitting the testimony of Adriano and Malin to instead be admitted independent of the statutethereby avoiding the explicit relevance inquiries, the particularized weighing of probative value and prejudicial effect, and the prophylactic limiting instruction required to admit evidence under K.S.A. 60-455. Gunby's challenge prompts us to review the development of our jurisprudence on admission of evidence of other crimes and civil wrongs. We conclude that our lines of cases allowing admission of such evidence independent of K.S.A. 60-455 are contrary to long-held common law and the text of the statute itself. The practice of admitting evidence independent of K.S.A. 60-455 also is unnecessary and carries the potential to violate a criminal defendant's fundamental right to a fair trial. Before the 1963 enactment of K.S.A. 60-455, Kansas cases consistently held: The well-recognized general rule prevailing in this and other jurisdictions is that evidence is inadmissible to prove that the accused has been convicted of another crime independent of, and unrelated to, the one on trial; it is not competent to prove one crime by proving another. See, e.g., State v. Myrick, 181 Kan. 1056, 1058, 317 P.2d 485 (1957). This general rule was based upon the principle that evidence of an unrelated prior conviction is irrelevant and unduly prejudicial, and this court repeatedly stated that the rule should be strictly enforced. See Myrick, 181 Kan. at 1058, 317 P.2d 485; see also State v. Aldrich, 174 Kan. 335, 337-38, 255 P.2d 1027 (1953) (limiting instruction saves admission); State v. Palmer, 173 Kan. 560, 565-66, 251 P.2d 225 (1952) (testimony regarding previous offenses error); State v. Fannan, 167 Kan. 723, 726-27, 207 P.2d 1176 (1949) (admission approved in light of limiting instruction); State v. Winchester, 166 Kan. 512, 514-16, 203 P.2d 229 (1949) (safeguards required to admit evidence of other offenses); State v. Owen, 162 Kan. 255, 260, 176 P.2d 564 (1947) (admission of earlier conviction for murder error); State v. Frizell, 132 Kan. 261, 267, 295 Pac. 658 (1931) (evidence of similar offense admissible; associate's involvement in other crimes not admissible); State v. Wheeler, 89 Kan. 160, 165-66, 130 Pac. 656 (1913) (evidence of relationship to other criminals ought not to have been received); State v. Reed, 53 Kan. 767, 774, 37 Pac. 174 (1894) (evidence of criminal intimacy with wife of murder victim relevant to motive; limitations appropriate). Nevertheless, several distinct exceptions to the general rule developed at common law, exceptions permitted from absolute necessity. Myrick, 181 Kan. at 1058, 317 P.2d 485. Evidence of an independent crime was admissible in the State's case in chief in the discretion of the court, under proper instructions, if relevant to prove identity of person or crime; scienter or guilty knowledge; intent; inclination or motive; plan, scheme, or system of operation; or malice. Such evidence also was admissible to rebut special defenses. Myrick, 181 Kan. at 1058-59, 317 P.2d 485; see Owen, 162 Kan. at 259, 176 P.2d 564 (evidence may be admissible to show identity, scienter or guilty knowledge, intent, motive, system, malice, or to rebut defense); State v. Grey, 154 Kan. 442, 444-45, 119 P.2d 468 (1941) (plan); State v. Gwynne, 142 Kan. 13, 15, 45 P.2d 849 (1935) (robbery of second bank in vicinity); State v. Caldwell, 131 Kan. 622, 624, 293 Pac. 389 (1930) (evidence of defendant's knowledge); State v. Turner, 128 Kan. 376, 377, 278 Pac. 58 (1929) (evidence of previous similar liquor offense); State v. Reuter, 126 Kan. 565, 567, 268 Pac. 845 (1928) (evidence may be appropriate to show identity, scienter, lack of mistake, plan); State v. Robinson, 125 Kan. 365, 367-68, 263 Pac. 1081 (1928) (knowledge, intent, method, absence of mistake); State v. Stanley, 123 Kan. 113, 115-16, 254 Pac. 314 (1927) (guilty knowledge); State v. King, 111 Kan. 140, 142-50, 206 Pac. 883 (1922) (collecting citations, permitting other crimes evidence to prove identity). In particular, from at least 1893 on, Kansas courts admitted evidence of a discordant marital relationship when one spouse stood accused of killing the other. See State v. O'Neil, 51 Kan. 651, 665, 33 Pac. 287 (1893); see also State v. Rupe, 226 Kan. 474, 477-78, 601 P.2d 675 (1979); State v. Scott, 117 Kan. 303, 319, 235 Pac. 380 (1924), aff'd on rehearing 118 Kan. 464, 235 Pac. 380 (1925); State v. Cruse, 112 Kan. 486, 494, 212 Pac. 81 (1923). In the 1893 case, the court specifically wrote: Ill treatment and previous assaults by husband on wife are admissible to prove motive, in cases of marital homicide. O'Neil, 51 Kan. 651, Syl. ¶ 2, 33 Pac. 287. (Emphasis added.) Still, the prejudicial effect of other crimes and civil wrongs evidence remained a concern when any exception to the general rule of exclusion was invoked at common law, and trial judges were urged to weigh carefully whether the relevance or probative value of the evidence justified the potential for undue prejudice. In addition, juries received appropriate limiting instructions. See Myrick, 181 Kan. at 1059, 317 P.2d 485. K.S.A. 60-455 became effective on January 1, 1964. It did not change the common law substantially. See, e.g., State v. Patchett, 203 Kan. 642, 643, 455 P.2d 580 (1969); State v. Wright, 194 Kan. 271, 274, 398 P.2d 339 (1965). Rather, it codified the historical concept that evidence of other crimes or civil wrongs could be admitted for certain limited purposes. Several cases soon admitted such evidence when relevant to prove a material fact, if, in the court's discretion, its relevance outweighed its prejudicial effect and the jury was properly instructed. See, e.g., State v. Jerrel, 200 Kan. 415, 420-21, 436 P.2d 973 (1968) (attempted larceny of promissory note relevant in prosecution for possession of burglary tools); State v. Omo, 199 Kan. 167, 173, 428 P.2d 768 (1967) (grand larceny conviction admissible regarding larceny in connection with burglary); State v. Darling, 197 Kan. 471, 475-81, 419 P.2d 836 (1966) (evidence relevant to intent, plan); State v. Crowe, 196 Kan. 622, 625-26, 414 P.2d 50 (1966) (preparation, plan illustrated); State v. Mader, 196 Kan. 469, 472-73, 412 P.2d 1001 (1966) (evidence demonstrated plan); State v. Lewis, 195 Kan. 389, 391-94, 405 P.2d 796 (1965) (identity, intent, plan shown by other crimes); State v. Wright, 194 Kan. at 274-76, 398 P.2d 339 (identity, other facts set forth in statute at issue in forgery prosecution); State v. Shannon, 194 Kan. 258, 262-63, 398 P.2d 344 (1965) (instruction set forth eight statutory facts). But two problems soon developed in the interpretation and application of the statute. The genesis of the first was the second case discussing K.S.A. 60-455 after its enactment. In that case, State v. Wright, 194 Kan. 271, 398 P.2d 339 (1965), the court's opinion correctly interpreted the new statute and appropriately applied the common-law safeguards. However, a critical part of the court's holding was misstated in one syllabus paragraph, which read: In a criminal action the rule against the admissibility of evidence of other similar but independent offenses should always be strictly enforced, and to justify any departure therefrom the evidence must come under one or more of the exceptions to the general rule as set forth in the Code of Civil Procedure, Laws 1963, Ch. 303, § 60-455. Wright, 194 Kan. 271, Syl. ¶ 1, 398 Pac.2d 339. (Emphasis added.) This paragraph's conversion of K.S.A. 60-455's list of material facts from exemplary to exclusive was picked up and reified by subsequent cases. These cases incorrectly limited the material facts supporting admission of other crimes and civil wrongs evidence to those eight explicitly set forth in the statutemotive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, and absence of mistake or accident (see State v. Jarvis, 201 Kan. 678, 682, 443 P.2d 272 [1968]; State v. Motley, 199 Kan. 335, 337, 430 P.2d 264 [1967])an interpretation that contradicts the legislature's unambiguous language. The eight material facts set forth in K.S.A. 60-455 are starting points for analysis rather than ending points. Evidence is admissible when relevant to prove some other material fact including motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity or absence of mistake or accident. (Emphasis added.) In other words, these eight are among the possibilities, not the only possibilities. The second problem with interpretation and application of the statute first surfaced in 1968, when this court decided State v. Roth, 200 Kan. 677, 438 P.2d 58 (1968). Evidence of defendant Stephen Roth's other similar offenses had been admitted as probative of intent, knowledge, and absence of mistake; but the trial judge failed to instruct the jury on the limited purpose of the admission. Roth, who had not requested a limiting instruction at trial, nevertheless argued on appeal that the failure to give the instruction was prejudicial error requiring reversal. Roth, 200 Kan. at 679, 438 P.2d 58. Despite pre-K.S.A. 60-455 holdings to the contrary, see e.g., Cruse, 112 Kan. at 492, 212 Pac. 81 (erroneous failure to give limiting instruction may, may not demand reversal), this court accepted Roth's argument: The instruction should have been given. The remaining question is, did the appellant waive the error by failing to request the instruction? We think not under the circumstances of this case. Roth, 200 Kan. at 680, 438 P.2d 58. (Emphasis added.) The court supported its conclusion by looking to K.S.A. 62-1447 (Corrick 1964), which imposed a positive duty upon the trial court to fairly present the law of the case on all salient features. Roth, 200 Kan. at 680, 438 P.2d 58. [W]hen such evidence is introduced under K.S.A. 60-455 its restriction to the purpose of that section becomes a salient feature in the case and failure to so instruct is error of such a prejudicial nature as to require the granting of a new trial. Roth, 200 Kan. at 680, 438 P.2d 58. Roth laid the groundwork for State v. Rambo, 208 Kan. 929, 495 P.2d 101 (1972), which came along 4 years later and eliminated Roth's qualifying language commanding reversal only under the circumstances of that case. In Rambo, reversal became an automatic and absolute remedy for failure to give a limiting instruction in K.S.A. 60-455 cases: The failure to give an instruction limiting the purpose for which evidence of a similar previous offense was to be considered, regardless of request, is of such a prejudicial nature as to require the granting of a new trial. Rambo, 208 Kan. at 930, 495 P.2d 101. These two problems with K.S.A. 60-455 interpretation of its list of material facts as exclusive rather than exemplary and the application of an unnecessarily harsh automatic reversal rule for cases in which a limiting instruction was erroneously omittedset the stage for rapid and enthusiastic development of various avoidance techniques. If one of these techniques was available, there was every incentive for the State to admit evidence independent of K.S.A. 60-455 and thus skirt its attendant safeguards. The first such technique was used in a case decided the same day as Rambo, which blazed a wide trail around K.S.A. 60-455. That case, State v. Martin, 208 Kan. 950, 953, 495 P.2d 89 (1972), held that a trial judge's failure to give a limiting instruction about evidence the defendant attacked a neighbor while looking for the victim did not require reversal. The evidence, although it tended to establish the statutory material facts of identity, intent and motive; and it negatived mistake, was independently admissible and without limiting instructions because it was evidence directly relating to the commission of the offense charged . . . tending to directly establish a crime. Martin, 208 Kan. at 952-53, 495 P.2d 89. The court did not explain why it held in Rambo that it was prejudicially erroneous to admit other crimes evidence under K.S.A. 60-455 without a limiting instruction, while it was willing to hold in Martin that it was not prejudicially erroneous to admit the same evidence independent of K.S.A. 60-455 without a limiting instruction. This anomaly was set in stone by this court's 1974 decision in State v. Bly, 215 Kan. 168, 523 P.2d 397 (1974). In Bly, a grocery store aggravated robbery case, the district court judge admitted K.S.A. 60-455 evidence of the defendant's federal conviction for bank robbery as relevant to identity. This court held the admission of the evidence error; the known facts underlying the bank robbery conviction were inadequate to determine whether that crime was similar enough to the charged crime. The court nevertheless declined to reverse, given the weight of other evidence against the defendant. Bly, 215 Kan. at 178-79, 523 P.2d 397. On the way to that outcome, Justice David Prager enunciated 11 basic principles for applying K.S.A. 60-455. They included: 6. Generally in every case where evidence of other crimes is admitted solely under the authority of 60-455 the trial court should give an instruction limiting the purpose for which evidence of the similar offense is to be considered. [Citation omitted.] It should be noted, however, that where evidence disclosing another criminal offense has a direct bearing on and relation to the commission of the offense itself, it is admissible without a limiting instruction. [Citation omitted.] Stated in another way, it is not prejudicially erroneous for the trial court to fail to give a limiting instruction on the purpose of evidence of other crimes when the challenged evidence is admissible independently of K.S.A. 60-455.  (Emphases added.) Bly, 215 Kan. at 175-76, 523 P.2d 397. Since Bly, K.S.A. 60-455 avoidance techniques have grown in number and variety; and we have reached that clichéd point when the exceptions threaten to swallow the rule. The expansion of the marital discord exception to K.S.A. 60-455 for spousal homicide cases is illustrative. It now covers many violent relationshipsbetween husband and wife, between separated and divorced spouses, between cohabitant and noncohabitant lovers, even between neighbors who have had a sexual relationship. See, e.g., State v. Patton, 280 Kan. 146, 167-72, 120 P.3d 760 (2005) (upholding admission of problems between spouses); State v. Roberson, 272 Kan. 1143, 1152-53, 38 P.3d 715, cert. denied 537 U.S. 829, 123 S.Ct. 127, 154 L.Ed.2d 44 (2002) (upholding admission of discord in sexual relationship between defendant, victim neighbor); State v. Young, 253 Kan. 28, 37, 852 P.2d 510 (1993) (upholding admission of abusive behavior toward live-in girlfriend before her murder); State v. Mayberry, 248 Kan. 369, 384-85, 807 P.2d 86 (1991) (upholding admission of problems between girlfriend, boyfriend); State v. Green, 232 Kan. 116, 119-23, 652 P.2d 697 (1982) (upholding admission of violence between separated spouses). We also have employed the marital discord avoidance technique to avoid reversal for failure to give a limiting instruction. See State v. Green, 232 Kan. at 119-21, 652 P.2d 697. And we have employed this technique even when it is conceded that the same evidence was related to a material fact listed in K.S.A. 60-455. See State v. Hedger, 248 Kan. 815, 818-20, 811 P.2d 1170 (1991) (intent); Green, 232 Kan. at 121, 652 P.2d 697 (intent). We also have approved admission of other crimes and civil wrongs evidence independent of K.S.A. 60-455 to show a continuing course of conduct on a defendant's part. See, e.g., State v. McHenry, 276 Kan. 513, 520, 78 P.3d 403 (2003) (prior acts of similar nature between same parties admissible independent of K.S.A. 60-455 to establish continuing course of conduct); State v. Jones, 247 Kan. 537, 544-47, 802 P.2d 533 (1990) (previous damage to window of ex-girlfriend's home admitted independent of K.S.A. 60-455 to show course of conduct in prosecution for damage to windows of ex-girlfriend's car). This has been true even though the evidence would have been admissible under the statute to show intent. See State v. Crossman, 229 Kan. 384, 387, 624 P.2d 461 (1981) (citing State v. Fisher, 222 Kan. 76, 85, 563 P.2d 1012 [1977]). In Crossman, the language of the opinion was limiting. This court said such evidence would be admissible independent of the statute  in cases of crimes involving illicit sexual relations or acts between an adult and child.  229 Kan. at 387, 624 P.2d 461. But the limiting language of Crossman was ignored in State v. Carr, 265 Kan. 608, 963 P.2d 421 (1998), where this court applied the Crossman avoidance technique to admit evidence of harsh discipline in a child abuse case not involving sexual acts. 265 Kan. at 623-25, 963 P.2d 421. Introduction of other crimes and civil wrongs evidence independent of K.S.A. 60-455 merely to corroborate the testimony of a witness also has been deemed acceptable. See, e.g., State v. Lee, 263 Kan. 97, 104, 948 P.2d 641 (1997) (testimony of accomplices corroborated by testimony about illegal items, guns). Our increasingly elastic approach to the admission of evidence of other crimes and civil wrongs is overdue for correction, as are the two problems that gave rise to the practice of admitting such evidence independent of K.S.A. 60-455. We hereby state unequivocally that the list of material facts in K.S.A. 60-455 is exemplary rather than exclusive. It may be that other crimes and civil wrongs evidence is relevant and admissible to prove a material fact other than the eight listed. Should this be a district judge's determination; however, the evidence must be subjected to the same sort of explicit relevance inquiries, particularized weighing of probative value and prejudicial effect, and prophylactic limiting instruction we have required when any other K.S.A. 60-455 evidence is admitted. This enables our return to sensible application of K.S.A. 60-455 and puts an end to the practice of admission of other crimes and civil wrongs evidence independent of it. It recognizes that the list in the statute has always been inclusive rather than exclusive, and that the several ways around application of and safeguards attendant to K.S.A. 60-455 must be abandoned, not only because they lack reliable precedent but because they were never necessary in the first place. Other crimes and civil wrongs evidence that passes the relevance and prejudice tests we have set up and is accompanied by an appropriate limiting instruction should always have been admissible, even if the particular material fact on which it was probative was not explicitly set forth in the statute. It never actually required a specially designed rule to admit it independent of the statute. Rather, such evidence, if permitted to do so, would have fallen squarely within it. We disapprove any language to the contrary in our previous opinions. Henceforth, admissibility of any and all other crimes and civil wrongs evidence will be governed by K.S.A. 60-455. Under this reinvigorated reading to K.S.A. 60-455, should a district judge neglect to apply the safeguards we have outlined to any other crimes or civil wrongs evidence, we will find error. But we also hereby unequivocally resolve the second problem that has plagued our cases in this area: We explicitly recognize that the admission of K.S.A. 60-455 evidence without the explicit relevance inquiries, particularized weighing of probative value and prejudicial effect, or prophylactic limiting instruction is not inevitably so prejudicial as to require automatic reversal. On the contrary it may be harmless. And we disapprove any language to the contrary in our previous opinions. Our opinion in State v. Ralls, 213 Kan. 249, 515 P.2d 1205 (1973), a case cited in Bly, demonstrates one situation in which we have already ruled that omission of a limiting instruction was harmless. In Ralls, the defendant introduced K.S.A. 60-455 evidence during his own direct examination. We therefore held that he waived protection under the statute. Ralls, 213 Kan. at 255-56, 515 P.2d 1205. We have relied on a waiver in other cases as well. See Wilbanks v. State, 224 Kan. 66, 579 P.2d 132 (1978); State v. Greene, 214 Kan. 78, 82, 519 P.2d 651 (1974), disapproved on other grounds by State v. Scott, 210 Kan. 426, 432-33, 502 P.2d 753 (1972); State v. Hale, 206 Kan. 521, 524-25, 479 P.2d 902 (1971); State v. Pappan, 206 Kan. 195, 197, 477 P.2d 989 (1970). And we have recently indicated less commitment to automatic reversal for K.S.A. 60-455 admission and exclusion errors. See State v. Tatum, 281 Kan. 1098, 1112-13, 135 P.3d 1088 (2006). And at least one case predating K.S.A. 60-455 treated omission of a limiting instruction as harmless error. See Cruse, 112 Kan. at 496, 212 P. 81 (failure to limit use of evidence to prove motive). The application of harmlessness analysis to omission of a K.S.A. 60-455 limiting instruction also has the virtue of harmonious coexistence with statutory changes on jury instructions made since Roth held failure to give such an instruction automatically reversible. K.S.A. 62-1447, the provision Roth relied upon to place an inflexible duty to instruct upon the trial judge, has been repealed and replaced by K.S.A. 22-3414, which provides: The judge shall instruct the jury at the close of the evidence before argument and the judge, in the judge's discretion, after the opening statements, may instruct the jury on such matters as in the judge's opinion will assist the jury in considering the evidence as it is presented. . . . . . . . No party may assign as error the giving or failure to give an instruction . . . unless the party objects thereto before the jury retires to consider its verdict stating distinctly the matter to which the party objects and the grounds of the objection unless the instruction or the failure to give an instruction is clearly erroneous. (Emphasis added.) K.S.A.2005 Supp. 22-3414(3). In short, a trial judge should give such a K.S.A. 60-455 limiting instruction, but the failure to do so, though error, will no longer demand automatic reversal. Where the complaining party neither requested the instruction nor objected to its omission, the failure to give the instruction will be reversible only if clearly erroneous. State v. Pabst, 273 Kan. 658, 660, 44 P.3d 1230, cert. denied 537 U.S. 959, 123 S.Ct. 384, 154 L.Ed.2d 311 (2002). `Instructions are clearly erroneous only if the reviewing court is firmly convinced there is a real possibility that the jury would have rendered a different verdict if the error had not occurred.' [Citation omitted.] State v. Shirley, 277 Kan. 659, 666, 89 P.3d 649 (2004). In the event a K.S.A. 60-455 limiting instruction was sought at trial and refused in error, we will examine the error for harmlessness under the typical rule of K.S.A. 60-261 (error must be inconsistent with substantial justice). Applying the foregoing template to this case, we are satisfied that the Adriano and Malin testimony about prior violence between Gunby and Sharp would have survived the K.S.A. 60-455 explicit relevance inquiries and particularized weighing of probative value and prejudicial effect. The district judge's failure to give a limiting instruction, in contrast, was error. This error, however, does not require reversal. The rest of the evidence against Gunby was truly overwhelming. It included other testimony about the disturbing and sometimes violent and sexual relationship between Gunby and Sharp. None of this other testimonywhich included Jaynes' testimony about the names Gunby called Sharp, Adriano's characterization of Gunby as a jealous ex-boyfriend, and Gunby's own characterization of the murder as the fulfillment of his earlier propheciesis challenged on this appeal.