Opinion ID: 1155936
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: prior acts of misconduct

Text: The jury learned, as a result of viewing the videotape, that some charge had previously been brought against appellant by his daughter. Appellant contends the alleged prior misconduct should not have been offered into evidence by the State because of the court's order excluding this evidence. The exclusionary order came about when, before trial at a hearing upon motions for change of venue and in limine, the following transpired: Gentlemen, beginning with the Change of Venue: You know, I have read the articles that you submitted, Counsel, with your brief, and I take note especially of the one article which goes into the Defendant's background from the State of Michigan and recites or reports such matters as acquittals from charges which  of course, when a person is acquitted of a charge and is found innocent, even though that was reported, the insinuation or implication might still remain in the minds of some citizens that those charges were properly brought in Michigan and the public sometimes has a way of reading into something of that nature something that isn't there. Of course, a good deal of this information, obviously, must have come to the paper on hearsay evidence or hearsay conversations with people, and having only, obviously, attempted to get one side of the story where there may have been another, that type of reporting does, in the mind of the Court, produce an atmosphere of prejudice in this community against the Defendant   .  In either event, it may not result in a fair trial for the Defendant. So that being the case, gentlemen, I am going to grant the Motion for a Change of Venue   . (Emphasis added.) THE COURT:    The next motion is a Motion In Limine. MR. BURLEY: Your Honor, the Motion in Limine that has been filed by the Defendant in this matter is directed to certain matters with respect to allegations or actions that the Defendant, Dr. Schmunk, may or may not have committed at a prior time. Particularly any matters concerning the Michigan Medical Practices Board or in the State of Michigan to the State of Michigan vs. Dr. Robert Schmunk. In response, appellee's attorney stated: We would agree with Mr. Burley that as far as the information from the State of Michigan is concerned, it would be  not be proper for us to introduce it in our case in chief   . And, in ruling upon the motion in limine, the court stated:  I will grant the Motion In Limine as to the State's case in chief as to any matters that were or may have taken place in the past in the Defendant's life.  (Emphasis added.) During the State's case in chief, the videotape, still containing references to charges in Michigan, was received into evidence without objection and then viewed by the jury. The court adjourned; and the next morning, before the trial commenced, appellant, in chambers, moved for a mistrial stating: Judge, I think we have an obligation to our client and our case in this matter to move for a dismissal in the matter by virtue of the prejudicial effect that the video tape had upon the jury in this matter. I think that the implication is very clear by virtue of the video tape and the particular portion which had to do with a polygraph where, number one, the Doctor indicated on that video that he would not take a polygraph, and the reason for him not taking a polygraph was a result of a matter that had occurred with respect to his daughter, or charge by his daughter   .       Although, I believe  I assumed, because of the substantial discussion, that all the Michigan stuff would be cut out and that everyone would monitor that to see that that would be done. Speaking from a human standpoint, I think the guards are down and you're just expecting that the one that is in control of certain evidence, their witnesses as well as demonstrative evidence or video evidence, is the one that has that primary responsibility.       THE COURT: Thank you, Counsel. Well, gentlemen, I'm going to deny the motion.    [A]t the time I heard it, I was shaken by the fact that Michigan  even Michigan was mentioned, and the accusation. I wish it hadn't been in there. I do want to delete it. I think that probably the very fact, if we make some special instruction on it, this could  this is strictly up to Counsel  this could serve to call it to the jurors' attention, or it could serve to soften the effect of it; I don't know. However, gentlemen, that I am leaving to Counsel. I don't really believe it's the State's job to be the watchdog over the entire plethora of evidence that has to come into the case. I wish it hadn't happened. (Emphasis added.) The court had changed the venue for this trial from Douglas, Wyoming to Sheridan, Wyoming to avoid the prejudicial effect of the extensive pretrial publicity concerning charges against appellant in the State of Michigan. In changing venue, the court stated that the prejudicial effect of the Michigan charge may not result in a fair trial. Admission of the unedited videotape informed the jury of the very evidence that the court had previously determined would be prejudicial and which had been the reason for the change of venue to Sheridan, Wyoming. And, although the jury learned that a charge had been brought against appellant by his daughter, it did not know the nature of the charge, its disposition, or how it related to this case. The jury was left to speculate upon this mysterious charge and could have considered it as evidence of the existence of appellant's dark side or split personality. But the error here is ever more grievous for although prior acts of misconduct may be admissible to show motive, opportunity, intent, knowledge or absence of mistake, Bishop v. State, Wyo., 687 P.2d 242 (1984), cert. denied ___ U.S. ___, 105 S.Ct. 1203, 84 L.Ed.2d 345 (1985); Rule 404(b), W.R.E., there is not even a claim here that the charges against appellant in Michigan might establish motive, opportunity, intent, knowledge, or absence of mistake. The State of Wyoming conceded in argument that it would not be proper   for us to introduce it   . We have said: `It is a dangerous species of evidence, not only because it requires a defendant to meet and explain other acts than those charged against him and for which he is on trial, but also because it may lead the jury to violate the great principle, that a party is not to be convicted of one crime by proof that he is quilty of another.' Gabrielson v. State, Wyo., 510 P.2d 534, 536 (1973) (quoting from Rosencrance v. State, 33 Wyo. 360, 239 P. 952, 953 (1925)). We have also stated that: [I]t is settled law in this jurisdiction that mere charges, accusations, and arrests are consistent with innocence; and they should not be inquired into if the purpose of the prosecution is to discredit the witness in the eyes of the jury and convey to the jury knowledge that such witness was charged with a crime. Gabrielson v. State, supra at 536 (quoted in Bishop v. State, supra, 687 P.2d at 248 (Cardine, Justice, dissenting)). Thus, great care should be exercised in the admission of prior-bad-act evidence because of the ever-present danger that a person accused of a crime may be convicted, not because of the evidence with respect to the crime charged but because of prior activities which a lay jury might incorrectly view as evidence of guilt. In all events, Rule 403, W.R.E., requires that such evidence should not be admitted if its probative value is outweighed by its prejudicial effect. Grabill v. State, Wyo., 621 P.2d 802, 808-809 (1980); Elliott v. State, Wyo., 600 P.2d 1044, 1049 (1979). In this case the prior act (charge) in Michigan had no probative value at all; and, in granting the motion to change the venue of the trial, the court had already determined that this evidence would be prejudicial to appellant in this case. When evidence of this unspecified charge against appellant was revealed and the prosecutor told the jury that a dark, mysterious side to appellant caused him to kill with premeditated malice, the jury could rationally conclude that the charge from Michigan was the basis for the prosecutor's theory. The jury was invited to speculate upon the charge  it might be anything, a crime involving drugs, an attempted homicide, or other activity that might reveal the dark side of appellant alluded to by the prosecutor. We are cognizant of the fact that the defense viewed the videotape on two or three occasions, but that fact alone did not relieve the State of the obligation to delete the references to the Michigan incidents. We think appellant's objection to this evidence in the limine motion and the court's ruling preserved the error.