Opinion ID: 853332
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Evidence of Handgun Possession

Text: Dickens argues that the testimony that he possessed a gun two days before the shooting violated the prohibition in Rule 404(b) [1] against evidence of prior bad acts. He contends that no exception applies and that evidence of a propensity to carry a gun is unfairly prejudicial. Rule 404(b) protects against conviction based on past actions (the so called `forbidden inference,' Hicks v. State, 690 N.E.2d 215, 218-19 (Ind.1997)), rather than facts relevant to the matter at issue. While prior acts are not permissible to show propensity, they may be allowed for other purposes. Rule 404(b) lists some other purposes, but this list is illustrative only. Hardin v. State, 611 N.E.2d 123, 129 (Ind.1993). In fact, extrinsic act evidence may be admitted for any purpose not specified in Rule 404(b) unless precluded by the first sentence of Rule 404(b) or any other Rule. Thompson v. State, 690 N.E.2d 224, 233 (Ind.1997) (citing Hardin, 611 N.E.2d at 129); see generally 12 Robert Lowell Miller Jr., Indiana Evidence § 404.235 (2d ed. 1995 & Supp.2000). When evidence is challenged under Rule 404(b), the trial court should determine: (1) whether the evidence is relevant to a matter at issue rather than just the defendant's propensity to commit the crime and (2) whether the probative value outweighs the prejudicial effect. Hicks, 690 N.E.2d at 221. We review the trial court ruling for an abuse of discretion. Id. at 223. Here, the evidence that Dickens was seen carrying a gun on his person just two days before the shooting was relevant. The shooting took place on an empty porch where Dickens was unlikely to have found a gun. Dickens' recent act of carrying a gun therefore goes to opportunity. The trial court did not err in concluding that the probative value of this evidence outweighed its prejudicial effect.