Opinion ID: 1809444
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Evidence Regarding Marijuana Use

Text: Pruett contends that evidence that he smoked marijuana was uncharged misconduct, subject to § 27-404. Pruett argues that the trial court erred in failing to require the State to identify the purpose for offering the evidence and in failing to hold an evidentiary hearing. He does not argue that the evidence was inadmissible under Neb.Rev.Stat. § 27-403 (Reissue 1995) as being more prejudicial than probative. Section 27-404 provides in part that [e]vidence of a person's character or a trait of his or her character is not admissible for the purpose of proving that he or she acted in conformity therewith on a particular occasion.... Evidence of uncharged misconduct, often referred to as evidence of prior bad acts may be admitted under § 27-404 for other purposes, but the proponent of the evidence must prove to the court outside the presence of the jury that the defendant committed uncharged misconduct. § 27-404(3). In addition, the proponent of the evidence must state on the record the specific purpose or purposes for which the evidence is being offered and the court must state the purpose or purposes for which the evidence is received. See State v. Sanchez, 257 Neb. 291, 597 N.W.2d 361 (1999). We have held, however, that where uncharged misconduct is not evidence of prior bad acts, § 27-404 does not apply. State v. Canbaz, 259 Neb. 583, 611 N.W.2d 395 (2000). Here, the State did not introduce evidence that Pruett smoked marijuana on a prior occasion or as evidence of his character to prove that he acted in conformity with that behavior on a later occasion. Instead, Pruett's action of smoking marijuana was contemporaneous with his other acts immediately before Wakan was shot, and the State offered the evidence to explain the circumstances surrounding Wakan's death. The evidence that Pruett smoked marijuana shortly before Wakan was killed was not evidence of prior bad acts subject to § 27-404. Instead, the evidence was relevant to show that Pruett was acting in a reckless manner at the time that he shot Wakan. See, generally, State v. Canbaz, supra . Nevertheless, the court gave a limiting instruction to the jury. We hold that under these circumstances, § 27-404 is not applicable. We conclude that Pruett's assignments of error regarding this issue are without merit.