Opinion ID: 1296847
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Scanner.

Text: Russell possessed a police scanner until the police took it away from him a few months prior to the killings. The scanner issue arose during presentation of the defense case. One of the defense theories was that Russell was working undercover for the police. The defense sought to introduce the following testimony from one of Russell's roommates: The roommate had called the police after noticing a man lurking outside; shortly thereafter, Russell returned to the residence saying he was angry she had called the police; and Russell said he had been in a police car when the call came in. Defense counsel said she wanted to introduce this evidence to show Russell was working with the police. The State countered that if this evidence were admitted, it would seek to introduce Russell's previous ownership of the scanner to show that Russell could have learned of the police call even if he were not employed by the police. The court stated, Either I am going to admit [Defendant's proposed testimony] and let the state go ahead with access to the police scanner, or I'm going to exclude it. Verbatim Report on Appeal, at 5385. Defense counsel responded by indicating that our position would be to let the evidence in and to let the state adduce evidence that he was in possession of a scanner in May. Verbatim Report on Appeal, at 5385. The trial court then allowed each party to present its evidence. Russell now contends admission of the scanner was improper. He argues that the evidence was not related to the elements of any of the charged crimes, that the scanner does not make any more probable his guilt in these charges, and that the evidence prejudicially implied that he had a criminal disposition. The scanner was relevant in rebutting the testimony proposed by defense counsel. Moreover, while this evidence has the potential for creating unfair prejudice, the prejudicial effect was markedly reduced in this case since the Defendant claimed to be working for the police. Also, the prosecutor elicited testimony informing the jury that possession of a scanner is not illegal. The trial court's decision was well within the range of discretion and we conclude that the evidence was properly admitted under ER 401 and 403. As to ER 404(b), the scanner was admitted for the purpose of explaining Russell's opportunity to learn of the police call other than through employment with the police. Because the evidence was not admitted to prove character, ER 404(b) was not violated.