Opinion ID: 1283097
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The Academics Take Over

Text: In 1975, Congress adopted the Federal Rules of Evidence. The philosophy of the Federal Rules, and it qualifies as revolutionary, is that any relevant evidence, by which it is meant anything that gives promise of being helpful to the trier of facts, is admissible if it is not rendered incompetent, for policy-based reasons, by a dwindling number of exclusionary rules[.] Jon R. Waltz, Judicial Discretion in the Admission of Evidence Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, 79 N.W.U.L.Rev. 1097, 1120 (1984). Rule 404(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence codified the uncharged misconduct doctrine in two sentences, but it shifted the doctrine from being exclusionary to being inclusionary. That is to say, under Rule 404(b), it became easier to admit evidence of other bad acts. [4] The 1975 Rule 404(b) stated: (b) Other crimes, wrongs, or acts. Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show that he acted 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. With a few variations, this Court adopted the most of the Federal Rules into the West Virginia Rules of Evidence in 1985. [5] Because of the potentially decisive impact of uncharged misconduct, and its countervailing prejudicial character, defense attorneys vigorously contest the use of uncharged misconduct evidence. Consequently, Rule 404(b) disputes are the most frequently litigated evidentiary issue in appellate courts. [6] In an unscientific search of West Virginia cases, I found at least 78 published criminal cases in the last 20 years where the admission of other bad acts under W.Va.R.E. Rule 404(b) was disputed on appeal. [7] In many cases, I believe that Rule 404(b) is being applied inconsistently. It appears that prosecutors and trial courts often search for a convenient pigeonhole to admit proof of other bad acts, then perform a perfunctory balance of the probative value against its prejudicial effect before admitting the other bad acts evidence. [8] See Syllabus Point 1, State v. McGinnis, 193 W.Va. 147, 455 S.E.2d 516 (1994). Because a trial court's review of questions under Rule 404(b) are discretionary, on appeal this Court has rarely found that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the other bad acts evidence. See State v. LaRock, 196 W.Va. 294, 312, 470 S.E.2d 613, 631 (1996). If the Court does find the trial court abused its discretion, then this Court will often then hold that the admission of the other bad acts evidence in a criminal case was harmless error. LaRock, 196 W.Va. at 312 n. 28, 470 S.E.2d at 631 n. 28. See also, Rule 52(a), W.Va. Rules of Criminal Procedure [1981] (Harmless Error. Any error, defect, irregularity, or variance which does not affect substantial rights shall be disregarded.). E.