Opinion ID: 887195
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Identity Evidence Linking Daniel Hurst to the Threatening Letters

Text: ¶ 43 Cheryl contends that the District Court made numerous evidentiary rulings that violated her rights to present a defense. Specifically, she alleges the District Court erred by excluding Daniel's (1) prior sexual activity, (2) psychological problems, (3) behavioral problems, (4) discharge from the U.S. Army for psychological reasons, (5) commitment to a mental health institution, and (6) conviction of vandalism in East Helena. Cheryl alleges this evidence qualifies under the seldom-used reverse 404(b) theory to identify Daniel as the author of the letters. By excluding that evidence, Cheryl contends the District Court violated Rule 404(b), M.R.Evid., her right to present a defense under due process, and the right to confront witnesses against her under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
¶ 44 Cheryl sought to admit Daniel's prior sexual history and psychological profile to show that he, and not Cheryl, wrote the letters. On occasion, a defendant will use Rule 404(b), M.R.Evid., to introduce evidence to inculpate another person, thus exculpating himself. Courts call evidence introduced for this purpose reverse 404(b) evidence. United States v. Stevens (3d Cir.1991), 935 F.2d 1380, 1401-02. Since the defendant is offering the reverse 404(b) evidence, courts applying the Rule 403, M.R.Evid., balancing test cannot consider the risk of unfair prejudice to the defendant. Stevens, 935 F.2d at 1404-05 ([T]he admissibility of `reverse 404(b)' evidence depends on a straightforward balancing of the evidence's probative value against considerations such as undue waste of time and confusion of the issues.). ¶ 45 Although the State raises the specter of prejudice to the government, it fails to develop that theory. Unfair prejudice against the government is rather rare. `Unfair prejudice' within its context means an undue tendency to suggest decision on an improper basis, commonly, though not necessarily, an emotional one. Fed.R.Evid. 403 advisory committee's note; see Southern, ¶ 67. Thus, the only possible unfair prejudice against the government occurs when the evidence tends to make the jury more likely to find a defendant not guilty despite the proof beyond a reasonable doubt. See, e.g., Old Chief v. United States (1997), 519 U.S. 172, 185 n. 8, 117 S.Ct. 644, 652 n. 8, 136 L.Ed.2d 574, 591 n. 8. By proving that someone else committed the crime, reverse 404(b) evidence is not likely to generate that risk of jury infidelity, and thus does not generate unfair prejudice. Only in the rarest circumstances will the district court be presented with unfair prejudice to the State in determining the admissibility of reverse 404(b) evidence. Those circumstances are not present here.
¶ 46 The District Court excluded six categories of evidence that pointed toward Daniel. Cheryl argues that this evidence of misidentification was admissible as reverse 404(b) evidence tending to show that Daniel, and not Cheryl, wrote the letters. The District Court granted the State's motion in limine to exclude evidence of Daniel's other crimes, wrongs, or acts. Under Rule 404(b), M.R.Evid., the District Court decided the modified Just rule, articulated in State v. Matt (1991), 249 Mont. 136, 814 P.2d 52, allowed it to exclude evidence of Daniel's specific acts. ¶ 47 Rule 404(b), M.R.Evid., provides that Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident. To be admissible under Rule 404(b), the modified Just rule requires that the other crimes, wrongs, or acts (1) must be similar and (2) not remote in time. Matt, 249 Mont. at 142, 814 P.2d at 56. Such evidence (3) is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show that he acted in conformity with such character; but may be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident. Matt, 249 Mont. at 142, 814 P.2d at 56. Finally, (4) although relevant, a court may exclude evidence if the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, misleading of the jury, considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence substantially outweighs its probative value. Matt, 249 Mont. at 142, 814 P.2d at 56.
¶ 48 `The difference between the proper use of other acts evidence to prove identity and the improper use of such evidence to prove propensity is a subtle matter.' State v. Sweeney, 2000 MT 74, ¶ 32, 299 Mont. 111, ¶ 32, 999 P.2d 296, ¶ 32 (quoting United States v. Luna (9th Cir.1994), 21 F.3d 874, 882). Indeed, this classification forms the crucial distinction at the basis of the third prong of the modified Just test. Specifically, if the proponent for admissibility offers the evidence solely to show propensity, Rule 404(b), M.R.Evid., prohibits courts from admitting that evidence. When evidence of prior bad acts is offered, the proponent must clearly articulate how that evidence fits into a chain of logical inferences, no link of which may be the inference that the defendant has the propensity to commit the crime charged. [2] United States v. Himelwright (3d Cir.1994), 42 F.3d 777, 782 (interpreting Rule 404(b), Fed.R.Evid.); People v. Zackowitz (1930), 254 N.Y. 192, 172 N.E. 466 (Cardozo, C.J., delivering the opinion of the court). ¶ 49 Of the six categories of evidence that Cheryl offers, four of them (psychological problems, behavioral problems, discharge from the U.S. Army for psychological reasons, and commitment to a mental health institution) provide only propensity evidence. Cheryl contends that Daniel has psychological problems, so he acted in conformity with those problems by writing the letters; he has behavioral problems, so he acted in conformity with those problems by writing the letters; etc. These chains of inferences clearly implicate propensity evidence. ¶ 50 Someone vandalized the Cliffords' car by spray-painting profanities in pink. Cheryl sought to admit evidence that Daniel had been convicted for vandalizing cars in East Helena. That evidence also creates a chain of inferences implicating propensity evidence: Daniel vandalized cars in East Helena, therefore he is a vandal, therefore he acted in conformity with that character trait when he vandalized the Cliffords' car. Evidence in this category is clearly inadmissible propensity evidence. ¶ 51 The more difficult question arises when considering the admissibility of specific, prior sexual activities in which Daniel, willingly or unwillingly, participated. At various points, Cheryl wanted the court to admit evidence of or allow examination into various experiences including the specific acts of sodomy to which Michael Scott subjected Daniel, the presence of two other men while Michael Scott molested Daniel, the specifics of Daniel being molested when he was very young, and the specific acts of incest. The District Court admitted references to the acts, but excluded the specific activities. Evidence proving these specific facts is relevant to the identity of the author, Cheryl argues, because the letters refer to specific acts of sodomy, a buttfuck party, and specific incestuous acts. ¶ 52 The District Court excluded these categories of evidence under the modified Just rule. Unfortunately, we cannot discern which rationale the court used to exclude the evidence. The fourth prong of that test repeats Rule 403, M.R.Evid. Compare Rule 403, M.R.Evid., with Matt, 249 Mont. at 142, 814 P.2d at 56. Generally, we review a district court's discretionary Rule 403, M.R.Evid., decisions for abuse of discretion, but we agree with the Himelwright court that when a district court rules on a Rule 403, M.R.Evid., question, but its reasons are not apparent from the record, we cannot review its discretion. Himelwright, 42 F.3d at 781. In such cases, we may examine the record and balance the factors ourselves. Himelwright, 42 F.3d at 781. Accordingly, we will balance the Rule 403 factors de novo. ¶ 53 Rule 403, M.R.Evid., provides that, [a]lthough relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence. The greater contains the less. Section 1-3-227, MCA. The District Court admitted copious amounts of evidence that Michael Scott had molested Daniel. No fewer than six witnesses testified that Michael Scott had molested Daniel, and that theme pervaded the case. As stated earlier, because these categories of evidence constitute reverse 404(b) evidence, this Court may not consider the danger of unfair prejudice in its balancing. Nevertheless, the jury need not have heard the multiple, graphic details painstakingly recounting the horrors through which Michael Scott put Daniel. The jury's imagination could quickly fill in the gaps without such detailed evidence. Thus, the probative value is very low. Taken together, the waste of time and needless presentation of cumulative evidence from such technical, detailed, and vivid explanations substantially outweigh the low probative value of that evidence. A similar analysis shows the District Court properly excluded specific evidence of Daniel's molestation. ¶ 54 In addition, the District Court allowed questions as to whether Daniel committed incest, but did not allow questions as to the specific acts. As above, the waste of time and needless presentation of cumulative evidence substantially outweigh the probative value of dwelling upon the specific instances. The District Court properly excluded this evidence. ¶ 55 Finally, the District Court also admitted evidence that other boys participated in the molestations at Michael Scott's home. Given this evidence that Daniel experienced a buttfuck party, evidence that two other men were present at other times amounts to needless presentation of cumulative evidence. The needless presentation of that cumulative evidence substantially outweighs the negligible probative value. Because these evidentiary items fail one prong of the modified Just test, we need not address the remaining prongs for admissibility. The District Court did not err by excluding this evidence.
¶ 56 Cheryl cites State v. Johnson, 1998 MT 107, 288 Mont. 513, 958 P.2d 1182, for the proposition that the reliable nature of the identity evidence was sufficient to tip the scales in favor of Cheryl's constitutional right to present a defense. Johnson addresses the balance between the defendant's right to present a defense and the victim's rights under the rape shield statute. ¶ 18-34. Cheryl's argument is very sparse and she fails to identify even the two interests on the scales. A defendant's right to present relevant evidence is not unlimited, but rather is subject to reasonable restrictions. United States v. Scheffer (1998), 523 U.S. 303, 308, 118 S.Ct. 1261, 1264, 140 L.Ed.2d 413, 418. Cheryl has not shown that these evidentiary restrictions are unreasonable, so we hold that they do not violate her right to present a defense.