Opinion ID: 1842904
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Timeliness of the Conduct

Text: The majority places a timeliness restriction on unadjudicated adult and juvenile criminal conduct by limiting the conduct on which the prosecutor may introduce evidence to that conduct for which the period of limitation for instituting prosecution had not run at the time of the indictment of the accused for the first degree murder. The majority states that this prevents a capital defendant from having to defend criminal charges that the prosecutor would not otherwise have been able to bring. But, where the trial court finds that the evidence of defendant's commission of the crimes is clear and convincing, competent, and reliable, it should make no difference, in terms of relevancy to defendant's character, that defendant can no longer be prosecuted for those crimes. The clear and convincing burden of proof protects the defendant sufficiently such that the introduction of these acts does not inject an arbitrary element into the jury's decision. The majority also states that to be admissible, juvenile adjudicated conduct should not be too remote from the first degree murder. However, I believe it would be most relevant and beneficial to look at the crimes for which the defendant has been convicted, occurring over his entire lifetime. The determination of any patterns or pockets of criminal conduct in the defendant's record can only help the jury in avoiding an arbitrary decision.