Opinion ID: 1044002
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Witnesses's References to Can Crew

Text: Prior to trial, the defense filed a motion in limine requesting the trial court to limit[] the State and all witnesses from making references that [Defendant] has been or was on [the] can crew or in jail shortly before this alleged offense. At the initial hearing on this motion, the State indicated that it would not be introducing proof about Defendant's participation on the can crew. The trial court did not enter an order. At a later hearing, the State indicated that it would be introducing evidence about Defendant's participation in the can crew because the two photographs shown to Ms. Lackey were obtained from the can crew roster. The defense objected, and the trial judge stated, [i]n looking at this testimony of somebody being on the can crew, I just don't find that to be terribly damaging. You know, it may indicate that he's done something, but we don't know what. He is probablyyou would be giving him some favorable consideration that he had even been put on the can crew. That's kind of a privilege. Everybody wants to get on the can crew. The judge added, if that were to come in, I definitely would have to give the jury some specific instructions that absolutely no inference of any kind could be drawn from the fact that he was on the can crew. During his opening statement, the prosecutor made reference to the can crew. After opening statements were concluded and the jury was sworn, the trial court instructed the jury as follows: Mention has been made about the can crew. I don't know whether anybody knows what the can crew is or not, but the only thing that I am instructing you to do is to totally disregard that fact of the Defendant being on the can crew or anybody else being on the can crew because I am instructing you that you cannot draw any inference that would be detrimental to this Defendant from that fact. It's just part of the evidence, that's all. Do not give it anymore weight than that. It will probably be mentioned again. I don't know whetherwell, my instructions will be the same. I'll not continue to interrupt, but that means nothing particularly in this case. Later, during his testimony, Deputy Benton repeated the victim's statement to him that her attacker had been on the can crew with her son, and also explained that he obtained photographs of potential suspects from the can crew roster. Later still, after Mr. Lackey, the victim's son, testified that he had been on the can crew with Defendant and others, the trial court again admonished the jury: I'll remind the jury of my previous admonition yesterday, that this business of the can crew, there's no inferences at all can be drawn from that. It's just simply part of the facts. Defendant complains that these references to the can crew were in violation of Tennessee Rule of Evidence 404 because they indicated to the jury that he had been incarcerated in the county jail at some point in the past. [6] We review a trial court's decisions about the admissibility of evidence for an abuse of discretion. State v. Banks, 271 S.W.3d 90, 116 (Tenn.2008). Reviewing courts will find an abuse of discretion only when the trial court applied incorrect legal standards, reached an illogical conclusion, based its decision on a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence, or employed reasoning that causes an injustice to the complaining party. Id. (citing Konvalinka v. Chattanooga-Hamilton Cnty. Hosp. Auth., 249 S.W.3d 346, 358 (Tenn.2008)). Tennessee Rule of Evidence 404(b) provides that [e]vidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity with the character trait. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes. Even if admissible for other purposes, however, [t]he court must exclude the evidence if its probative value is outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. Tenn. R. Evid. 404(b)(4). Defendant argues that the proof about his participation on the can crew was highly prejudicial. We disagree. First, the prosecutor's and the witnesses's references to the can crew were ambiguous and did not clearly indicate that Defendant had previously engaged in a crime or other wrongful act. Second, the references to the can crew were not elicited to prove a character trait possessed by Defendant but were elicited in conjunction with establishing the perpetrator's identity. Evidence of prior wrongs may be admissible for the purpose of proving identity. Tenn. R. Evid. 404(b), Advisory Comm'n Comments; State v. Kiser, 284 S.W.3d 227, 288 app. (Tenn.2009). Third, the proof demonstrated that Deputy Benton's use of the can crew information and photographs resulted in the victim identifying someone other than Defendant as her possible assailant, thereby helping rather than prejudicing Defendant in his claim that he was not the perpetrator. Finally, the trial court properly instructed the jury not to draw any inferences about Defendant from the references to the can crew, and the jury is presumed to follow the court's instructions. Kiser, 284 S.W.3d at 272; State v. Shaw, 37 S.W.3d 900, 904 (Tenn.2001). The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting this testimony, and Defendant is not entitled to relief on the basis of this issue.