Opinion ID: 1388145
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Instruction on Limited Use of Evidence

Text: Johnson argues that the trial court erred when it failed to instruct the jury as to the limited use of the evidence of the Swanson murder. Johnson contends that the court should have instructed the jury that the Swanson murder could only be considered to show Johnson's motive for killing the trooper. The general rule is that when evidence of other crimes is admitted for a specific purpose, the judge is required to instruct the jury to limit their consideration of this evidence for the particular purpose for which it is offered. See State v. Steadman , 216 S.C. 579, 59 S.E. (2d) 168 (1950); State v. Smalls , 260 S.C. 44, 194 S.E. (2d) 188 (1973); 23 C.J.S. Criminal Law , § 1032(3). The reasoning behind this rule is to protect against a jury convicting a defendant just because he has committed other crimes and not because it has been proven that he is guilty of the crime for which he is accused. An exception to this general rule was recognized in State v. Nix , 288 S.C. 492, 343 S.E. (2d) 627 (Ct. App. 1986). There, the Court of Appeals held that a limiting instruction is unnecessary where evidence of the other crime is admissible on the main issue or where the evidence admitted to show motive or intent is of acts which may well be supposed to have been done in furtherance or [sic] such motive or intent. In Corpus Juris Secundum under the section discussing evidence of other wrongs it states that [e]vidence which has a direct bearing on, or relation to the commission of, the crime itself, so as to form part of the res gestae , is admissible without limiting instructions. 23A C.J.S. Criminal Law § 1208 (1989). In the case at bar, the evidence of Swanson's murder forms part of the res gestae. The fact that a dead body was concealed in the back of the vehicle explains why Johnson would shoot the trooper when he opened the door. Furthermore, the other crime in this case was directly related to the murder of the trooper. The crimes were not totally unrelated as in most other cases wherein such evidence is introduced. For example, in State v. Brown , 296 S.C. 191, 371 S.E. (2d) 523 (1988), the Court held that failure to give a limiting instruction was reversible error where the evidence presented were prior criminal convictions offered for impeachment purposes. The distinction is that Brown's prior convictions had nothing to do with the crime for which he was being tried. Here, the evidence of Swanson's murder had a direct bearing on and related to the commission of the murder of the trooper such that it formed part of the res gestae. Therefore, the failure to give a limiting instruction did not constitute reversible error.