Opinion ID: 2823797
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Admissibility of CRE 404(b) Evidence

Text: Â¶24Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â The Colorado Rules of Evidence expressly limit the admissibility of evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts. CRE 404(b). This evidence is inadmissible to prove a personâs character to show that the person acted according to that character on a particular occasion. Id. We have articulated three reasons why evidence of prior badÂ acts is restricted: (1) the risk that a jury may convict a defendant as punishment the defendant for past acts or because the jury sees the defendant as âundesirable,â (2) the possibility that a jury will place more weight than it should on the character evidence, and (3) the concern that it is unfair to require a defendant to disprove the prior bad acts in addition to defending against the crime charged. Kaufman v. People, 202 P.3d 542, 552 (Colo. 2009). In other words, even though this evidence may have some logical relevance, its prejudicial effect may outweigh its probative value under Rule 403. People v. Rath, 44 P.3d 1033, 1038 (Colo. 2002). Rule 404(b), however, may allow this evidence when it is used for other purposes, such as âproof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident.â Thus, Rule 404(b) does not necessarily bar evidence when it is offered for any other purpose. See Rath, 44 P.3d at 1038â39. Â¶25Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Bearing in mind the limitations of 404(b) evidence, we have articulated aÂ four-part test to determine the admissibility of evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts under Rule 404(b). People v. Spoto, 795 P.2d 1314, 1318 (Colo. 1990). To be admissible under the Spoto test, the 404(b) evidence must: (1) relate to a material fact; (2) be logically relevant; (3) have a logical relevance that âis independent of the intermediate inference, prohibited by CRE 404(b), that the defendant has a bad characterâ and committed the crime charged because he acted in conformity with that bad character; and (4) have a probative value that is not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. Id. Under the third part of the test, the prosecution must state âa precise evidential hypothesisâ for how the prior act evidence tends to prove somethingÂ permissible under Rule 404(b). Id. at 1319. The fourth part of the test recites the balancing test found in Rule 403. See id. at 1318.