Opinion ID: 1540179
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Materiality Prong of Getz Test.

Text: To support his criticism of the trial judge's analysis of the materiality prong, Campbell relies on our holding in Deshields v. State. [9] In Deshields, we quoted Getz's holding that no evidential purpose is served by proof that the defendant committed other intentional acts of the same type. [10] The State replies that it is clear that this evidence was material to an ultimate issue in dispute in this case: whether Campbell was trafficking and delivering methamphetamine to Morales. The State claims that the evidence is vital to explain Campbell's trafficking plan and operation because the State could not recover physical evidence and only recorded one wiretapped conversation about delivery (October 26), which did not refer to Campbell. Getz and D.R.E. 404(b) permit later bad acts evidence under certain conditions. [11] Where the evidence of a later bad act is offered for a proper purpose, like plan or scheme, the trial judge should engage in the Getz analysis. [12] Evidence of other bad acts is admissible when those acts have independent logical relevance and when their probative value is not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. [13] The evidence of the prior bad act must be logically related to the material facts of the case. [14] In Getz, we held that evidence of other crimes must be material to an issue or ultimate fact in dispute in the case. [15] The planned November 3rd transaction has independent logical relevance because it is material to identifying Campbell as part of a trafficking scheme. The probative value of identifying Campbell as the supplier outweighs the prejudice of notifying the jury about the later bad act. In this case, the State did not prefer evidence of the future deal for the purpose of showing Campbell's bad character but instead to show that Campbell was engaged in ongoing drug deals. [16] This evidence allowed the jury to evaluate the evidence in this case to determine whether Campbell engaged in trafficking as well as delivery of methamphetamine. The evidence of a future drug deal is sufficiently material to satisfy Getz.