Opinion ID: 1300890
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: defendant cook's second issue

Text: Defendant Cook next contends that the trial court committed reversible error in overruling defendant's objections to testimony that he sold cocaine on the night of the shooting as this evidence was minimally probative yet highly prejudicial, thereby denying him basic constitutional rights to a fair trial and due process of law. Defendant contends that the evidence, if relevant, would be inadmissible evidence of prior bad acts under Rule 404(b). Defendant Cook argues that he is entitled to a new trial because even assuming he sold drugs, Genorval McKethan's testimony bore no relevance to any material issue, and tended exclusively to show his character in an unfavorable way through wholly inadmissible evidence. We disagree. McKethan testified that defendant Cook, defendant Smith, and others were selling drugs at Groveview Terrace on the night of the murder. Defense counsel objected on the ground that the prosecutor was leading the witness. The trial judge sustained the objection. The question was rephrased and defense counsel made a general objection. This objection was overruled. Defense counsel did not request a limiting or cautionary instruction. Testimony continued about drug sales at Groveview Terrace on the night of the murder without objection as follows: Q. Who were some of the people you saw selling drugs down there that night? A. Saw Frog selling drugs that day. Q. Who else? A. Saw Tim. I saw Hook; I saw Worm [McNeill], and a couple of older boys? [sic] Q. And where were these drug sales taking place? A. On the corner, like the middle of the neighborhood. Q. Okay. When you say Hook, who are you talking about? A. Michael Hardison. Q. When you say Tim, who are you talking about? A. Timothy Smith. Q. And when you say Frog, who are you talking about? A. Frederick Cook. McKethan then identified defendants Cook and Smith, without objection, as the men to whom he was referring during his testimony. Rule 404(b) of the North Carolina Rules of Evidence provides: Other crimes, wrongs, or acts. Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show that he acted in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, absence of mistake, entrapment or accident. N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 404(b) (1992). In recent cases this Court has stated that Rule 404(b) provides a clear general rule of inclusion of relevant evidence of other crimes, wrongs or acts by a defendant, subject to but one exception requiring its exclusion if its only probative value is to show that the defendant has the propensity or disposition to commit an offense of the nature of the crime charged. State v. Coffey, 326 N.C. 268, 278-79, 389 S.E.2d 48, 54-55 (1990). In the instant case, there was evidence tending to show that the victim had a drug problem. Evidence about drug sales by defendant Cook and his friends on the night of the murder was relevant to show the motive for the shooting and to put the crime in context. Thus, the testimony was admissible under Rule 404(b) and the trial court did not err in admitting it.