Opinion ID: 1057938
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Testimony of Mitchell Roberts

Text: The defendant asserts that the trial court should have excluded testimony that, shortly after the crimes, he possessed a small caliber, automatic handgun and a double-bladed knife. Tennessee Rule of Evidence 404(b) provides that [e]vidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity with the character trait. Tenn. R. Evid. 404(b). At trial, Mitchell Roberts, the defendant's former employer, testified that the defendant possessed the gun and the knife after the commission of the crimes. The Court of Criminal Appeals ruled that the trial court did not err by admitting the testimony, reasoning that the evidence was relevant and not prohibited by Tennessee Rule of Evidence 404(b) because the possession of a weapon is not necessarily a crime or wrongful act. We agree. Other jurisdictions have ruled similarly in these circumstances. For example, in Busey v. United States, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that testimony that Busey possessed a revolver that might have been the murder weapon was not admitted improperly to establish criminal propensity. That evidence was directly relevant . . . because it constituted evidence supporting the charge that Busey was the person who committed the crimes charged. Busey v. United States, 747 A.2d 1153, 1165 (D.C.App. 2000). That court has also ruled that [a]n accused person's prior possession of the physical means of committing the crime is some evidence of the probability of his guilt, and is therefore admissible. Coleman v. United States, 379 A.2d 710, 712 (D.C.App.1977). Similarly, in People v. Houston, the Michigan Court of Appeals determined that proof that Houston had possessed a .380 handgun three days before the victim was murdered with the same caliber weapon was directly relevant to identifying defendant as the killer, concluding that the evidence was not inadmissible under Rule 404(b) because the mere possession of a pistol is not a crime. People v. Houston, 261 Mich.App. 463, 683 N.W.2d 192, 195-96 (2004). In Williams v. State, the Indiana Supreme Court observed that [i]t is by no means clear that weapons possession, evidence of gun sales, and the like, are necessarily prior `bad acts' for 404(b) purposes. Williams v. State, 690 N.E.2d 162, 174-75 (Ind.1997). Finally, the Maryland Supreme Court has also agreed that the defendant's possession of guns or ammunition does not qualify as a bad act under the evidentiary rules. Klauenberg v. State, 355 Md. 528, 735 A.2d 1061, 1073 (1999). Under Tennessee law, it is a crime to carry a firearm or large knife with the intent to go armed. See Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-17-1307 (2003). Nevertheless, weapons of the type described by Roberts, a double-bladed knife and a small caliber weapon, may be lawfully possessed under a variety of circumstances. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1308 (2003). In our view, the ownership of these weapons, standing alone, does not constitute a crime. The testimony that Roberts saw the defendant in the possession of weapons similar to those used in the crimes did not necessarily constitute evidence of a bad act. Because of the weapons' similarity to those described by the victim Gonzales, the evidence was especially probative as to the identity of the perpetrator. The trial court did not err by admitting the testimony of Mitchell Roberts.