Opinion ID: 1485096
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Danger of Unfair Prejudice

Text: Evidence that is otherwise relevant and admissible may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. [39] Appellant's final claim is that parts of Lanning's testimony about child molesters were irrelevant and inflammatory. [40] Appellant specifically complains of Lanning's references to such repugnant tactics as blackmail, threats and offering children pornography, drugs and alcohol. Appellant argues there was no evidence he had engaged in any such behavior, and that Lanning's recitation of these lurid and irrelevant details [41] served only to link him unfairly to reprehensible conduct with which he was not charged. Appellant overstates his case. Lanning's testimony was not irrelevant merely because some common offender conduct he had observed had not been ascribed to appellant. In point of fact, there was evidence from which the jury could infer that appellant did blackmail L.B., via an implicit threat to alter her grades. And even if some of Lanning's comments contravened the judge's prior admonition to confine his description of offender behavior to conduct of which appellant was accused, we are not persuaded that appellant was prejudiced. Lanning admitted knowing nothing about the facts of appellant's case and never opined that appellant fit any sort of profile of a child molester. Indeed, Lanning did not purport to provide such a profile at all; he made it clear that not all child molesters behaved in the same way or employed the unsavory tactics he described. We see no reason to believe the jury attributed any reprehensible conduct to appellant for which there was no evidence. If anything, Lanning's testimony about such conduct provided fodder for the defense to distinguish appellant from the offenders Lanning had studied.