Opinion ID: 3046401
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Attempted Carjacking

Text: Plaintiffs argue that the District Court erred when it admitted evidence of the attempted carjacking because that evidence was unduly prejudicial and irrelevant. We disagree. Prior to trial, plaintiffs moved to exclude any evidence that Smith was involved in an attempted carjacking prior to his interaction with Officer Whitehead. The Court ruled that evidence of the confrontation surrounding the Mercedes was probative, but elicited the agreement of the defense that it would not seek to characterize the confrontation as a carjacking, thus limiting whatever prejudice that evidence may have caused. Despite this, counsel for plaintiffs stated, in her opening statement: Harry Smith, III then ran up to a gentleman who was in a Mercedes, a gray Mercedes, and was bamming on the car door and pulling on the car door, as though he was trying to enter that car. He had moments before been diagnosed as having hallucinations, mental health problems, and they had already at the hospital proceeded to check him in. The gentleman in the gray Mercedes thought he was being carjacked. He was scared and he should have been. (Supp. App. at 283.) The District Court correctly concluded that evidence of the attempted carjacking was relevant to provide context regarding the confrontation between Smith and Officer Whitehead and probative of how Smith came to be behind the wheel of the patrol car. After weighing the probative value of the evidence against the potential for unfair -4- prejudice, the Court declined to exclude the evidence.1 The Court did not abuse its discretion in so doing.