Opinion ID: 888335
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Mackrill's Claim

Text: ¶ 36 Mackrill contends that the District Court erroneously allowed the State to present (1) testimony that he was, as Mackrill puts it, disorderly, rude, and/or confrontational, as well as obnoxious, obstreperous, and even verbally confrontational, in other nearby bars during the hours before the incident with Gluesing, and (2) the videotape of Mackrill being interviewed at the police station after his arrest, which showed his aggressive demeanor. Mackrill contends that the only reason the prosecution wanted to present this evidence was to show that Mackrill was so aggressive that he must have wanted to fight, i.e., he was predisposed to commit assault outside the Mint. Mackrill argues that [s]uch evidence was totally unnecessary, as Mr. Mackrill did not contest that he was an active participant in the fight with Gluesing. Rather, according to Mackrill, [t]he real issue was whether Gluesing was also a willing fighter, and evidence regarding Mackrill's earlier disorderliness and his post-arrest aggressiveness was not needed to determine this issue. Mackrill challenges the admission of the evidence on two grounds: first, he asserts that the ground relied on by the District Court the transaction rule  was mistaken; and second, he asserts that the evidence was overly prejudicial under M.R. Evid. 403.