Opinion ID: 1163403
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 36

Heading: Uncharged Criminal Activity.

Text: Brett also asserts the trial court erred in allowing the prosecution to cross-examine Gwen Blackmon regarding uncharged criminal activity engaged in by Brett and her son. Blackmon is the mother of Brett's codefendant in a 1983 robbery conviction. On direct, Blackmon testified that James respected people and that he was a real gentleman. Report of Proceedings vol. 17, at 190. She also stated, I would never have expected that from James. Burglary, yes. But murder, that's real hard for me to swallow. Report of Proceedings vol. 17, at 192. On cross examination, after questioning Blackmon about the 1983 robbery, the prosecutor asked if Brett and her son were involved in any other crime together. Report of Proceedings vol. 17, at 193. Blackmon responded: A lot of small burglaries because they were unsupervised and running at night and they were  had no money, and a lot of times I didn't see evidence of violence but I heard a lot of talk about it. Report of Proceedings vol. 17, at 193. [48] Uncharged criminal activities may not be presented to the jury as a nonstatutory aggravating factor. Bartholomew II, at 642. The prosecutor may, however, introduce evidence to rebut matters raised in mitigation by the defendant subject to the balancing test set forth in ER 403. Bartholomew II, at 642-43; Lord, 117 Wn.2d at 891. Here, questions regarding Brett's uncharged criminal activity were relevant because they were used to rebut Blackmon's testimony that Brett respected people and was a gentleman. The probative value of this testimony was not substantially outweighed by its prejudicial impact. The jury was aware of the murder committed by Brett and of his prior juvenile and adult convictions. The testimony was not cumulative or graphic in nature. In this context, the rebuttal value of the evidence outweighs its prejudicial impact. See Lord, 117 Wn.2d at 895.