Opinion ID: 1952443
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the admission of moorhead's prior dui convictions

Text: Moorhead's first contention on appeal is that the Superior Court erred in admitting evidence offered by the State that Moorhead had two prior DUI convictions, one in 1986 and the other in 1989. This evidence was introduced, over Moorhead's objection, as part of the State's case-in-chief. The State contends that the evidence is admissible to establish Moorhead's state of mind. The Superior Court's decision to allow the introduction of the two DUI convictions was based on Delaware Rule of Evidence (D.R.E.) 404(b). [2] The trial judge found that the convictions were relevant to one of the elements of murder in the second degree  that the defendant acted with a recklessness that manifested a cruel, wicked and depraved indifference to human life. [T]he admission of such evidence rests in the sound discretion of the trial judge and will not be disturbed on appeal unless the admission was a clear abuse of discretion. Howard v. State, Del.Supr., 549 A.2d 692, 693 (1988). The trial judge gave a limiting instruction to the jury when the evidence was admitted and in his charge to the jury. [3] Moorhead claims that the evidence should not have been admitted because the convictions were too remote in time to be relevant, and the probative value of such evidence was outweighed by the unfair prejudice resulting from its admission. Moorhead also contends that the limiting instruction to the jury was inadequate to eliminate the unfair prejudice. Therefore, according to Moorhead, the Superior Court's decision to admit the evidence was an abuse of discretion. This Court's decision in Getz v. State, Del.Supr., 538 A.2d 726 (1988) articulates six guidelines for determining the admissibility of evidence of prior crimes: (1) the evidence must be material to an issue or ultimate fact in dispute; (2) the evidence must be introduced for a purpose sanctioned by D.R.E. 404(b) or another purpose not inconsistent with the basic prohibition against such evidence; (3) the evidence proving the prior crime(s) must be plain, clear, and conclusive; (4) the prior crime(s) must not be too remote in time; (5) the probative value of the evidence must be balanced against its unfairly prejudicial effect; and (6) the jury must be instructed regarding the limited purpose for the introduction of the evidence. Id. at 734. The Superior Court conducted a thorough and well-reasoned analysis of each of these guidelines. [4] With respect to the first guideline in Getz, the trial judge reasonably concluded that the evidence of Moorhead's prior DUI convictions was material to the issue of whether his recklessness manifested a cruel, wicked, and depraved indifference to human life. [5] Because this issue relates to Moorhead's intent, one of the expressly sanctioned purposes for which evidence may be admitted under D.R.E. 404(b), the Superior Court correctly determined that the second Getz guideline had been met. See, e.g., United States v. Fleming, 4th Cir., 739 F.2d 945, 949 (1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1193, 105 S.Ct. 970, 83 L.Ed.2d 973 (1985) (holding that a defendant's driving record was relevant to establish that defendant had grounds to be aware of the risk his drinking and driving while intoxicated presented to others); United States v. Loera, 9th Cir., 923 F.2d 725, 729, cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 112 S.Ct. 164, 116 L.Ed.2d 128 (1991). Furthermore, Moorhead does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to establish his prior convictions, so the third guideline of Getz is not disputed. While Moorhead argues that his prior DUI convictions should have been excluded as too remote in time under the fourth Getz guideline, he fails to assert any specific reason why the Superior Court's conclusion to the contrary was an abuse of discretion. We do not find the two convictions, which occurred between three and six years prior to the accident in this case, to be excessively remote. It is also significant that the Superior Court excluded Moorhead's 1983 conviction for reckless driving because it was too remote in time. This decision shows that the Superior Court carefully considered the time nexus between the prior convictions offered by the State and the crime currently at issue. Moorhead's principal objection to the Superior Court's ruling is that the prior convictions had minimal relevance to his state of mind, but had a highly prejudicial effect on the ultimate outcome of the case. Balancing the probative value of the evidence to be introduced against any unfairly prejudicial effect is required by D.R.E. 403 and is a key element in a Getz analysis. While much of the evidence offered by the State against a defendant is necessarily prejudicial to some degree, the admission of evidence becomes unfairly prejudicial when the evidence has an undue tendency to suggest decision on an improper basis, commonly, though not necessarily, an emotional one. Fed.R.Evid. 403 advisory committee's note. [6] Moorhead has failed to show that the Superior Court abused its discretion when it determined that the probative value of the prior convictions outweighed their unfairly prejudicial effect. We need not decide whether or not the prior convictions might have had an unfairly prejudicial effect if there had been a highly contested dispute whether Moorhead had actually been intoxicated while driving. Moorhead concedes that he was intoxicated while driving, but contends that he did not have a cruel, wicked and depraved indifference to human life as required for murder in the second degree under 11 Del.C. § 635. The Superior Court had discretion to find that Moorhead's prior convictions were probative on this issue while not being unfairly prejudicial. Finally, the Superior Court complied with the sixth and last guideline of Getz by instructing the jury regarding the limited purpose for which the evidence of Moorhead's prior DUI convictions was admitted. In fact, the jury was given a limiting instruction both at the time the evidence was introduced and during the final jury charge. Moorhead has demonstrated no error in these limiting instructions. We therefore conclude that the Superior Court's decision to admit evidence of Moorhead's prior DUI convictions, after careful consideration of relevant case law and a thorough analysis of the guidelines set forth in Getz, was not an abuse of discretion.