Opinion ID: 1952443
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: the exclusion of evidence offered by moorhead of his good act in 1970

Text: Moorhead argues that, having permitted the introduction of evidence of his DUI convictions in 1986 and 1989, the Superior Court erred by excluding evidence concerning Moorhead's rescue of two persons from a burning automobile in 1970. In effect, Moorhead claims that the Superior Court opened the door to the admission of evidence of prior acts, both good and bad, when it admitted the DUI convictions. We hold that the trial judge did not commit error in refusing to admit Moorhead's proffered evidence. Evidence of prior acts is not admissible simply because evidence of other prior acts has been introduced. The Getz analysis is designed to ensure that evidence of prior acts is not admitted unless it is relevant, probative, clear, and not unfairly prejudicial. Unlike the 1986 and 1989 DUI convictions, Moorhead's heroic actions in 1970 are extremely remote in time. Moreover, while the DUI convictions did bear directly on Moorhead's state of mind when he drove in an intoxicated condition in 1992, the 1970 heroic act had no relationship to his 1992 state of mind or any element of the crime charged. The Superior Court so found, and that finding is not an abuse of discretion. [7]