Opinion ID: 1439460
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Joshua Green

Text: Second, Appellant argues that Joshua Green's testimony was improperly allowed. Specifically, Appellant claims that Joshua's testimony that his dad had always been on the outside of the law and had physically abused him from the time he was a child was improper character evidence. During Joshua's testimony, Appellant made a Rule 403 objection on the basis that the prejudice resulting from the testimony was going to substantially outweigh any probative value it might have. The trial court overruled the objection as to specific prior bad acts in that it is coming in under 40[4](b) with the concept of control which is the major part of their case. . . . [t]he probative value will far outweigh any prejudicial effect. [6] In introducing this testimony, the State sought to demonstrate that Appellant's abusive and controlling behavior played a part in the commission of the murders. Specifically, the State argued that the control that [Appellant] had over his family explains why none of them ever came to the police until he got arrested. It explains why Chad did what he did. The trial court took this into consideration and overruled Appellant's objections to the testimony. Upon review, we find that the trial court abused its discretion in allowing Joshua's control testimony because it is not relevant evidence. The State's claim that the evidence was admissible because it was not offered to prove Appellant abused his family, but rather to show the control he had over the family, has no merit. First, control is not an issue in this case. Appellant was charged with four counts of capital murder and kidnapping. Therefore, the control he may or may not have had over his family is not independently relevant to whether he committed the crimes. Second, the State's control argument deals more with Joshua's credibility as related to his delay in coming forward rather than Appellant's guilt. The credibility of a witness is not the subject of Rule 404(b) and, as such, cannot be the basis for allowing testimony of other bad acts. Finally, Joshua's statements that his father was outside the law and that Appellant physically abused him were more prejudicial than probative. We must again note that Appellant was charged with the murder of the Elliott family and the kidnapping of Felicia, not with ordering a member of his family to commit these crimes; therefore, control was not a main issue at trial. Joshua's statements painted a picture to the jury that Appellant was a controlling, abusive father. Whether or not this was true, it was not independently relevant to the present case. Consequently, the trial court abused its discretion in admitting this testimony under Rule 404(b).