Opinion ID: 2175676
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: A: The Motive Exception

Text: The court allowed the government to introduce the evidence falling within the strictures of Category C under the motive theory of exception to the introduction of Drew testimony. [9] Although evidence of uncharged crimes and misconduct in the nature of criminal action are generally inadmissible to prove predisposition to commit a certain type of crime, from which the jury might infer that the defendant committed the crime charged, Harper v. United States, 582 A.2d 485, 489 (D.C.1990), such evidence is admissible when relevant to prove, inter alia, that the offender had a motive to commit the charged offenses. Green v. United States, 580 A.2d 1325, 1328 (D.C.1990); Bigelow v. United States, 498 A.2d 210, 213 (D.C.1985). [T]he other crimes evidence must be directed to a genuine, material, and contested issue in the case and must be logically relevant to prove this issue for a reason other than its power to demonstrate criminal propensity. Roper v. United States, 564 A.2d 726, 731 (D.C.1989); Ali v. United States, 520 A.2d 306, 310 (D.C.1987). Moreover, [w]hether an issue has been raised for purposes of receiving other crimes evidence depends upon both the elements of the offense charged and the defense presented. Willcher v. United States, 408 A.2d 67, 75 (D.C.1979) (citations omitted). Even if the Drew material fits within an exception such as motive, the trial court may not allow it in evidence unless the court finds its probative value outweighs the prejudicial impact. Jefferson v. United States, 587 A.2d 1075, 1078 (D.C.1991). The determinations of relevance, materiality and whether probativeness outweighs prejudice are committed to the sound discretion of the trial court, and will not be overturned on appeal absent an abuse of that discretion. E.g., German v. United States, 525 A.2d 596, 607 (D.C.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 944, 108 S.Ct. 331, 98 L.Ed.2d 358 (1987). In this case, the trial court, in explicitly exercising its discretion, concluded that the Category C evidence was directly relevant to proving appellants' motive in committing the offenses with which they were charged, and that the evidence was more probative than prejudicial. Both appellants claim that the evidence was inadmissible under the motive exception because no affirmative defense was presented and motive was not an element of the charged offenses. However, as we have made clear in several recent opinions, no affirmative defense need be pleaded nor must motive constitute an element of the offense charged to permit admission of motive evidence where the defendant generally denies committing the offense and the evidence helps to establish the identity of the defendant as the offender. Hill v. United States, No. 89-639, slip op. at 6-8 (D.C. May 30, 1991), and cases cited; Green, supra, 580 A.2d at 1328 (evidence of prior uncharged altercations between accused and decedent admissible because highly relevant to the issue of identity). The rationale is that motive evidence which suggests the identity of a murderer is not dependent on the nature of the defense ... for the particular defense that a defendant elects to present cannot make admissible evidence inadmissible. Rather, the case law makes clear that the admissibility of evidence such as that at issue here depends on the identity of the parties, i.e., on the fact that the defendant had a motive to harm this particular victim, with whom he already had an established relationship. Hill, supra, slip op. at 8. Moreover, there is no requirement that the facts of the uncharged and charged crimes bear substantial similarity, because the motive exception where identity is at stake is broader than the independent identity exception to Drew, and permits evidence of past hostility between the defendant and the victim to be admitted as proof of a motive to commit the particular hostile act against the same victim.... Id., slip op. at 9. The motive evidence need not consist solely of hostile or violent acts; other types of evidence are similarly admissible as long as they are relevant to proof of a motive for the crime charged and demonstrate that the defendant's prior criminal conduct was directed toward the same victim. Id. We therefore perceive no error in the trial court's admission of the Category C evidence pursuant to the motive exception to Drew.