Opinion ID: 2636367
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Admissibility of Evidence of Honesty and Truthfulness as Pertinent Traits in a Prosecution for Solicitation to Commit Burglary

Text: {34} Although the precise issues in this case are matters of first impression in New Mexico, past opinions of this Court and others provide helpful guides for the determination of pertinency, or relevancy, of particular character traits to charged crimes. Because proof of a person's character provides circumstantial evidence that tends to show that [a person] acted in conformity with his or her character on a particular occasion, State v. Armendariz, 2006-NMSC-036, ¶ 17, 140 N.M. 182, 141 P.3d 526, proof of character, to be relevant, must be confined to the nature of the offense under charge and bear some pertinent analogy and reference to it. McKnight, 21 N.M. at 32, 153 P. at 80 (holding that a defendant's reputation for chastity was irrelevant and inadmissible in a prosecution for homicide). In common human experience acts of deceit, fraud, cheating, or stealing, for example, are universally regarded as conduct which reflects adversely on [a person's] honesty and integrity. Acts of violence on the other hand, which may result from a short temper, a combative nature, extreme provocation, or other causes, generally have little or no direct bearing on honesty or veracity. State v. Melendrez, 91 N.M. 259, 261, 572 P.2d 1267, 1269 (Ct.App.1977) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted) (analyzing relevance of shoplifting offense to honest character under Rule 609). Some admissible character traits, like a person's character for obeying the strictures of the law, or being law-abiding, are pertinent to a broader range of offenses than narrower traits such as nonviolence or honesty. See Hewitt, 634 F.2d at 279 (5th Cir.1981) (holding that law-abiding character is admissible in all cases); see also People v. Miller, 890 P.2d 84, 92 (Colo.1995) (distinguishing admissibility of law-abiding and truthfulness traits). {35} In this case, Defendant proffered that his character witnesses would testify that he was both an honest and a truthful person. Throughout this litigation, the parties have made no efforts to distinguish honesty and truthfulness as traits having differing relevance or applicability. Honesty and truthfulness, if indeed they can be considered separate traits in other contexts, have been treated as interchangeable in New Mexico case law involving analogous character trait relevance. See Melendrez, 91 N.M. at 261, 572 P.2d at 1269 (holding that offenses of deceit, fraud, cheating, or stealing are relevant to both honesty and veracity for purposes of Rule 609 impeachment). The district court determined that evidence of neither was admissible in a prosecution for solicitation to commit burglary. The Court of Appeals, relying in part on the analogous Melendrez opinion construing relevance for Rule 609 purposes, concluded that evidence of both was admissible. The State asks us to hold that neither trait was admissible, and Defendant asks us to hold that both were admissible. Although the parties did not articulate any distinction between the two, our research reflects that we must address whether we should recognize any such distinction for the purposes of deciding this case. {36} A few courts in other jurisdictions have taken the view that honesty and truthfulness should be given separate evidentiary application under Rule 404(A)(1), on the theory that one who is honest must also be truthful because honesty subsumes truthfulness, while one may be truthful but not be honest. Wiggins v. State, 778 S.W.2d 877, 889 (Tex.Ct.App.1989). Our research, however, has found no psychological, sociological, or other scientific or empirical research to support what appear to be only ipse dixit theoretical distinctions. A number of jurisdictions, like New Mexico, either have not accepted or have explicitly rejected such narrow distinctions in determining the scope of relevant character traits. See State v. Stewart, 712 A.2d 362, 364 (R.I.1998) ([T]he distinction between the word `truthful' and the word `honest' is so subtle as to be imperceptible.); accord Manna v. State, 945 A.2d 1149, 1155 (Del.2008) (rejecting the practical utility of such a distinction and holding that evidence of both honesty and truthfulness are admissible under Rule 404(A)(1) in a robbery trial). We think the latter cases represent the better view and reaffirm the approach of Melendrez. There is simply no persuasive authority to support a theory that psychologists or ordinary citizens would draw any realistic distinctions between the likely behaviors of an Honest Abe and a Truthful Abe. {37} Honesty is considered to be a trait of character pertinent to a charge involving a theft crime, such as the burglary Defendant was accused of having solicited to be committed in this case. See 1 McCormick on Evidence § 191, at 769 (Kenneth S. Broun et al. eds., 6th ed.2006); see also State v. Austad, 197 Mont. 70, 641 P.2d 1373, 1383 (1982) (character for honesty and truthfulness pertinent under Rule 404(A)(1) to burglary and robbery charges); State v. Hortman, 207 Neb. 393, 299 N.W.2d 187, 190 (1980) (acknowledging honesty pertinent to a charge of theft). {38} This same character trait analysis has been used in the context of determining the kinds of offenses that are pertinent to truthfulness and honesty in the related context of witness impeachment under other rules. See Melendrez, 91 N.M. at 261, 572 P.2d at 1269 (holding that shoplifting is relevant to dishonest and untruthful character under Rule 609); see also Michelson, 335 U.S. at 483, 69 S.Ct. 213 (observing that the crimes of receiving stolen property and offering a bribe to a revenue agent are traits that are inconsistent with an honest and truthful character); People v. Lassell, 108 Cal.App.3d 720, 166 Cal.Rptr. 678, 683 (1980) (holding that burglary and receiving stolen property are relevant to honesty and veracity); Oxford English Dictionary 350 (2d ed.1989) (showing the modern understanding of honesty as the quality opposed to lying, cheating, or stealing); American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 632 (1973) (defining honest as [n]ot lying, cheating, stealing, or taking unfair advantage); Webster's New World College Dictionary 684 (4th ed.2002) (defining honesty as refraining from lying, cheating, or stealing). {39} In this case, the State makes no argument that evidence of honest and truthful character would have been inadmissible if Defendant had been charged with personally committing a burglary. Instead, it argues that a character trait that is pertinent to a charge of burglary is not pertinent to a charge of soliciting someone else to carry out the same burglary. {40} Criminal solicitation is not committed in a vacuum; it is a specific intent crime that requires the solicitation of a substantive underlying crime. See § 30-28-3(A) ([A] person is guilty of criminal solicitation if, with the intent that another person engage in conduct constituting a felony, he solicits, commands, requests, induces, employs or otherwise attempts to promote or facilitate another person to engage in conduct constituting a felony within or without the state.). At Defendant's trial, the jury was properly instructed to determine whether Defendant intended to encourage another person to commit aggravated residential burglary. In order to find Defendant guilty, the jury was required to find beyond a reasonable doubt that he intended to cause the person he solicited to make an unlawful entry into a dwelling for the purpose of committing a theft inside. {41} The State's theory seems to focus on an accused's particular physical role in the planned crime, instead of the presence or absence of his criminal intent, in determining which character traits are pertinent to a consideration of the likelihood of his participation in the crime. This misapprehends why the law considers character to be relevant in determining guilt or innocence. Criminal intent is the essence of what distinguishes criminal from non-criminal conduct. The contention that an injury can amount to a crime only when inflicted by intention is no provincial or transient notion. It is as universal and persistent in mature systems of law as belief in freedom of the human will and a consequent ability and duty of the normal individual to choose between good and evil. Morissette v. United States, 342 U.S. 246, 250, 72 S.Ct. 240, 96 L.Ed. 288 (1952) (quoting William Blackstone, 4 Commentaries ); see also State v. Yarborough, 1996-NMSC-068, ¶ 9, 122 N.M. 596, 930 P.2d 131 (We must be sure that the penalties associated with a felony conviction are imposed only in response to an act done with at least the minimum culpable state of mind.). In the more colorful phrasing of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, even a dog distinguishes between being stumbled over and being kicked. Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., The Common Law 3 (Little, Brown & Co.1938) (1881). {42} The fallacy of focusing on an accused's physical participation, instead of the relationship between his intent and the commission of a crime, is demonstrated by a few hypothetical differences in how one could intentionally assist in the commission of a burglary. The State has never argued with the proposition that an honest person would be less likely than a dishonest person to enter a home with the intent to steal. Would honesty be any less relevant where a person is accused of reaching through a window to accomplish the same theft, without getting his whole body inside? Or where a defendant allegedly used a pair of tongs to reach inside without any part of his own body crossing the threshold? Or where a defendant is charged with having used a remote control robotic device to make the entry and theft? Or where the defendant, as in this case, allegedly used a human agent instead of a mechanical device to accomplish the very same theft? It is obvious to us that the character inquiry goes to whether a person would be likely to participate intentionally in a crime of theft and not on the physical means of accomplishing that dishonest result. {43} Our cases on accessory liability are consistent with this conclusion. This Court has long recognized that for an accessory who encourages or assists another to commit a crime to be punishable, an accessory must share the criminal intent of the principal. State v. Ochoa, 41 N.M. 589, 599, 72 P.2d 609, 615 (1937). This intent can be inferred from behavior which encourages the [criminal] act.... State v. Carrasco, 1997-NMSC-047, ¶ 7, 124 N.M. 64, 946 P.2d 1075 (citing Ochoa with approval). For Defendant to have committed the charged crime of solicitation to commit burglary, he must have intended to cause someone to make an unauthorized entry into a home for the purpose of carrying out a crime of dishonesty. His own honest character would have been relevant to the factfinder's assessment of the likelihood that he might have committed such a crime, and the evidence should have been admitted under the requirements of Rule 11-404(A)(1).