Opinion ID: 2264644
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Maryland Caselaw

Text: This Court has had many opportunities to interpret the other crimes evidence rule and has consistently held that, in a criminal proceeding, it is a standard limited to acts committed by a defendant. We have never extended the use of this rule beyond the scope of a criminal defendant and we refuse to do so today. Most recently we said that this rule means that evidence that the defendant committed other crimes or bad acts is not admissible unless it has special relevance.... The rationale underlying the exclusion of other crimes evidence is that a jury, confronted with evidence that a defendant committed another crime, may utilize improperly the evidence to conclude that the defendant is a bad person and, therefore, should be convicted of the charges for which he is on trial. Wynn v. State, 351 Md. 307, 316, 317, 718 A.2d 588, 592, 593 (1998) (emphasis added); see State v. Taylor, 347 Md. 363, 368, 369, 701 A.2d 389, 392, 392 (1997) (Evidence of other crimes or other bad acts committed by the accused is not admissible unless it has special relevance.... Underlying this rule is the concern that the jury will use the other crimes evidence to convict and punish the defendant for having a criminal disposition or to infer that he is more likely to have committed the crime for which he is on trial. (emphasis added)); Conyers v. State, 345 Md. 525, 560, 693 A.2d 781, 798 (1997) (noting that evidence of other crimes generally is inadmissible because it indicates that the accused probably committed the crime for which he or she is on trial); Ayers v. State, 335 Md. 602, 630, 645 A.2d 22, 35 (1994) (We have frequently enunciated the general rule that evidence of a defendant's prior criminal acts may not be introduced to prove guilt of the offense for which the defendant is on trial. (emphasis added)); Faulkner, 314 Md. at 633, 552 A.2d at 897 (Generally, `evidence of a defendant's prior criminal acts may not be introduced to prove that he is guilty of the offense for which he is on trial.' Evidence of other crimes may tend to confuse the jurors, predispose them to a belief in the defendant's guilt, or prejudice their minds against the defendant. (emphasis added) (citations omitted) (quoting Straughn v. State, 297 Md. 329, 333, 465 A.2d 1166, 1168 (1983))); Straughn, 297 Md. at 333, 465 A.2d at 1168-69 (There are two reasons for the rule. First, if a jury considers a defendant's prior criminal activity, it may decide to convict and punish him for having a criminal disposition. Second, a jury might infer that because the defendant has committed crimes in the past, he is more likely to have committed the crime for which he is being tried. (emphasis added)); State v. Jones, 284 Md. 232, 238, 395 A.2d 1182, 1185 (1979) (As a general rule, it is error to admit evidence of other offenses independent of the particular crime charged. The reason for the rule is obvious; such evidence may merely show bad character, improperly prejudice the jury, or unfairly surprise the accused in his defense at trial. (emphasis added) (citations omitted)); Cross v. State, 282 Md. 468, 473, 386 A.2d 757, 761 (1978) ([E]vidence which tends to show that the accused committed another crime independent of that for which he is on trial, even one of the same type, is inadmissible. (emphasis added)); Ross v. State, 276 Md. 664, 669, 350 A.2d 680, 684 (1976) (The frequently enunciated general rule in this state, followed uniformly elsewhere, is that in a prosecution for a particular crime, evidence which in any manner shows or tends to show that the accused has committed another crime wholly independent of that for which he is on trial, even though it be a crime of the same type, is irrelevant and inadmissible. (emphasis added)), quoted in McKnight v. State, 280 Md. 604, 612, 375 A.2d 551, 556 (1977). Every indication from the Maryland case law is that, in criminal proceedings, the other crimes evidence exclusionary rule is limited to crimes, wrongs, and acts committed by the defendant. This interpretation is bolstered by the intent behind this rule to ensure that an accused gets a fair trial free from undue prejudice and bias based on his or her past criminal history. To extend this rule of exclusion to parties other than the defendant broadens it beyond the type of prejudice that this rule was designed to prevent. In the case sub judice, evidence of other crimes committed by a witness may serve to impeach that witness's testimony but it does not result in an unfair trial wherein a defendant may be punished for prior behavior. Clearly, this is not the type of prejudice that the other crimes evidence standard was designed to protect.