Opinion ID: 1891330
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Challenge to the Admission of Evidence of Prior Uncharged Sexual Acts Against the Complainant

Text: Trump contends that the testimony of the prior uncharged acts, specifically that he engaged in oral sex with the complainant from 1990-91, was not necessary to the prosecution's case and was prejudicial to him. The State responds that the testimony was properly admitted because it showed both Trump's opportunity and intent to commit the crimes and that the earlier acts were inextricably intertwined with the later crimes. [32] We conclude that the trial court did not commit plain error by admitting the evidence under Delaware Rules of Evidence (D.R.E.) 404(b). Usually, when the defense has made a proper objection to the admission of evidence under D.R.E. 404(b), this Court reviews the trial court's decision for abuse of discretion. [33] Here, however, Trump's counsel initially objected at trial to the court's decision to admit the evidence, but then rescinded the objection. [34] The recission of the objection means that Trump failed properly to raise and preserve his objection. Consequently, this Court applies the narrower, plain error standard of review. [35] Pursuant to the plain error standard, the error complained of must be so clearly prejudicial to substantial rights as to jeopardize the fairness and integrity of the trial process.... Furthermore, the doctrine of plain error is limited to material defects which are apparent on the face of the record; which are basic, serious and fundamental in their character, and which clearly deprive an accused of a substantial right, or which clearly shows manifest injustice. [36] D.R.E. 404(b) provides that: 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. In Getz v. State, [37] this Court announced six principles to guide trial judges when determining whether and how to admit evidence under D.R.E. 404(b): (1) the evidence must be material to an issue.... in the case; (2) the evidence must be introduced for a purpose sanctioned by Rule 404(b) or any other purpose not inconsistent with the basic prohibition against evidence of bad character or criminal disposition; (3) evidence of the other acts must be proved by ... clear and conclusive evidence; (4) the other acts cannot be too remote in time; (5) the court needs to balance the probative value of such evidence against its potential for prejudice ( i.e., a D.R.E. 403 analysis); and (6) the court must instruct the jury about the reason the evidence was admitted. [38] Here, the trial court specifically followed the criteria from Getz and satisfied each requirement. This Court also has established nine factors to consider when a trial court applies the balancing test of D.R.E. 403 (the fifth factor of Getz ) in deciding whether to admit evidence under D.R.E. 404(b). [39] The judge should consider (1) the extent to which the point to be proved is disputed, (2) the adequacy of proof of the prior conduct, (3) the probative force of the evidence, (4) the proponent's need for the evidence, (5) the availability of less prejudicial proof, (6) the extent of the prejudice associated with the evidence, (7) the similarity between the charged offense and the prior activity, (8) the effectiveness of limiting instructions, and (9) whether the prior act evidence would significantly prolong the trial. [40] The Superior Court found that the evidence satisfied these criteria. Trump's only specific objections, raised for the first time on appeal, are that the prosecution could have presented its case without the evidence of prior sexual acts and that since those acts occurred at least a year before the charged acts, they were too remote ( i.e., factor 4 from Getz ) to overcome the D.R.E. 403 analysis. These assertions fail to show that the trial court committed plain error. In Vanderhoff v. State, we held that it was appropriate for the purpose of showing intent and absence of mistake by the defendant for the trial court to allow the prosecution to present evidence that the defendant committed other improper sexual acts with the victim four years before he allegedly committed the sexual assault for which he was being charged. [41] Since the Superior Court applied the Getz criteria, part of which included the balancing test from D.R.E. 403, this Court affirmed the defendant's conviction. Here, the prosecution introduced the evidence of the prior sexual acts to show both intent and a plan by Trump to abuse the complainant while her mother was asleep or away from home. The evidence was material to show whether Trump committed the presently charged crimes because it involved a similar activity being forced upon the complainant. Although the prior acts occurred eight years before the charges in this matter were filed, evidence presented within ten years is considered relevant under D.R.E. 404(b). [42] Consequently, Trump has failed to prove that the trial court committed plain error in its decision to admit evidence of the uncharged sexual assaults under D.R.E. 404(b). [43]