Opinion ID: 1897263
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Jackson's Probationary Status

Text: The parties stipulated before trial that Jackson's status as a probationer would be disclosed to the jury. With respect to Jackson's probationary status, however, the jury was given the following limiting instruction by the trial judge: I need to talk to you about the evidence that you have heard thus far, particularly you have heard evidence that Mr. Jackson was on probation at the time of the alleged offences. You need to understand that the reason that the evidence was presented to you was so that you could understand why these officers were involved, and the context of the alleged offences. The fact that the Defendant was on probation is absolutely no evidence that he committed these offences. You shouldn't consider it as evidence, that he committed those offences, nor should you consider it as evidence that he is a bad person, or of a character that would be likely or more likely to have committed offences such as the ones [he] has been charged with. The only reason probation is relevant is because based on the allegations of the State, it is inextricably intertwined with evidence of the criminal conduct alleged in this case. So you should not consider it for any other reason than to put the encounter that has been alleged between those officers and the defendant in context. In the closing instructions, the trial judge reminded the jury that: If I direct you to consider evidence for only a limited purpose  and I did give you one such instruction during the course of the trial, as you'll recall, regarding the defendant's probationary status at the time of the alleged offenses  you must consider the evidence for that purpose only. The State submits those instructions cautioned the jury against using such testimony as evidence that [the defendant] is a bad person, or of a character that would be likely or more likely to have committed offenses such as the one [he] has been charged with. Accordingly, the State contends those instructions also effectually mitigated any reference to Jackson being armed and dangerous. Jackson disagrees, noting that both of the trial judge's instructions focused on Jackson's probationary status rather than his reputation for being armed and dangerous.