Opinion ID: 1236100
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Guiding Precedent

Text: In syllabus point one of Edward Charles L., we acknowledged the fundamental principles of Rule 404(b), as follows: 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. W.Va.R.Evid. 404(b). 183 W.Va. at 643, 398 S.E.2d at 125, Syl. Pt. 1. In State v. Finley, 177 W.Va. 554, 355 S.E.2d 47 (1987), we recognized the general exclusionary purpose of the rule, as follows: The purpose of the rule is to prevent the conviction of an accused for one crime by the use of evidence that he has committed other crimes, and to preclude the inference that because he had committed other crimes previously, he was more liable to commit the crime for which he is presently being indicted and tried. Id. at 556, 355 S.E.2d at 49. In syllabus point two of Edward Charles L., this Court applied the general principles of Rule 404(b) to cases involving child sexual assault or abuse victims, and explained as follows: Collateral acts or crimes may be introduced in cases involving child sexual assault or sexual abuse victims to show the perpetrator had a lustful disposition towards the victim, a lustful disposition towards children generally, or a lustful disposition to specific other children provided such evidence relates to incidents reasonably close in time to the incident(s) giving rise to the indictment. To the extent that this conflicts with our decision in State v. Dolin, 176 W.Va. 688, 347 S.E.2d 208 (1986), it is overruled. 183 W.Va. at 643, 398 S.E.2d at 125, Syl. Pt. 2. This Court enumerated specific guidelines for evaluating Rule 404(b) evidence in syllabus point one of McGinnis, directing as follows: When offering evidence under Rule 404(b) of the West Virginia Rules of Evidence, the prosecution is required to identify the specific purpose for which the evidence is being offered and the jury must be instructed to limit its consideration of the evidence to only that purpose. It is not sufficient for the prosecution or the trial court merely to cite or mention the litany of possible uses listed in Rule 404(b). The specific and precise purpose for which the evidence is offered must clearly be shown from the record and that purpose alone must be told to the jury in the trial court's instruction. 193 W.Va. at 151, 455 S.E.2d at 520, Syl. Pt. 1. In syllabus point two of McGinnis, this Court further explained the requirements for trial court evaluation, explaining as follows: Where an offer of evidence is made under Rule 404(b) of the West Virginia Rules of Evidence, the trial court, pursuant to Rule 104(a) of the West Virginia Rules of Evidence, is to determine its admissibility. Before admitting the evidence, the trial court should conduct an in camera hearing as stated in State v. Dolin, 176 W.Va. 688, 347 S.E.2d 208 (1986). After hearing the evidence and arguments of counsel, the trial court must be satisfied by a preponderance of the evidence that the acts or conduct occurred and that the defendant committed the acts. If the trial court does not find by a preponderance of the evidence that the acts or conduct was committed or that the defendant was the actor, the evidence should be excluded under Rule 404(b). If a sufficient showing has been made, the trial court must then determine the relevancy of the evidence under Rules 401 and 402 of the West Virginia Rules of Evidence and conduct the balancing required under Rule 403 of the West Virginia Rules of Evidence. If the trial court is then satisfied that the Rule 404(b) evidence is admissible, it should instruct the jury on the limited purpose for which such evidence has been admitted. A limiting instruction should be given at the time the evidence is offered, and we recommend that it be repeated in the trial court's general charge to the jury at the conclusion of the evidence. 193 W.Va. at 151, 455 S.E.2d at 520, Syl. Pt. 2. This Court expressed in LaRock that guilt or innocence of an accused must be established by evidence relevant to the particular offense being tried, not by showing a defendant was engaged in other acts of wrongdoing. 196 W.Va. at 311, 470 S.E.2d at 630. We concurrently recognized, however, that there are times that `other crimes' evidence is admissible if a trial court can take adequate measures to guarantee the evidence will not be misused. Id. In syllabus point three of LaRock, we held: It is presumed a defendant is protected from undue prejudice if the following requirements are met: (1) the prosecution offered the evidence for a proper purpose; (2) the evidence was relevant; (3) the trial court made an on-the-record determination under Rule 403 of the West Virginia Rules of Evidence that the probative value of the evidence is not substantially outweighed by its potential for unfair prejudice; and (4) the trial court gave a limiting instruction. Id. at 299, 470 S.E.2d at 618, Syl. Pt. 3.