Opinion ID: 1400019
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: rap video

Text: Next, appellant argues that the trial court violated KRE 403 and 404(B) by admitting portions of a video depicting Appellant talking or rapping with his friends after he killed his wife. In this video, shot days after the murder, Appellant can be seen boasting of his crime in a seven minute video montage, saying things such as:  B___ made me mad, and I had to take her life. My name is Dennis Greene and I ain't got no f___ing wife.  I knew I was gonna be givin' it to her. . . when I got home . . .  I cut her motherf___in' neck with a sword . . .  I'm sittin' in the cell starin' at four walls . . . Appellant contends that showing the jury this video violated KRE 403 and 404(b) because evidence of prior, uncharged bad acts is not admissible just because a party asserts that such evidence tends to support one of the . . . purposes [listed in the rule]. Commonwealth v. Maddox, 955 S.W.2d 718, 722 (Ky.1997). We have traditionally held that evidence primarily designed to cast aspersions on the character of the defendant should not be admitted. In Billings v. Commonwealth, 843 S.W.2d 890, 892 (Ky.1992), we held that evidence of criminal conduct other than that being tried is admissible only if probative of an issue independent of character or criminal predisposition, and only if its probative value on that issue outweighs the unfair prejudice with respect to character. We also held in Bell v. Commonwealth, 875 S.W.2d 882, 889 (Ky.1994), that [i]t is a well-known fundamental rule that evidence that a defendant on trial had committed other offenses is never admissible unless it comes within certain exceptions, which are well-defined in the rule itself. [3] Jones v. Commonwealth [303 Ky. 666], 198 S.W.2d 969, 970 (Ky. 1947). For this reason, trial courts must apply the rule cautiously, with an eye towards eliminating evidence which is relevant only as proof of an accused's propensity to commit a certain type of crime. Appellant contends that the rap video is simply character evidence introduced to prove a criminal disposition. Billings, 843 S.W.2d at 892. Appellant, however, misapplies the character evidence standard. Evidence of prior arrests, convictions, or bad acts is excluded not because they are not relevant, but rather, because the probative value of the character evidence is substantially outweighed by the prejudicial effect. Here, that is not the case because (a) the video refers to Appellant's actions and emotions regarding this crime, not a previous offense, (b) the video sheds light on Appellant's EED defense by illuminating his mental state shortly after the killing, and (c) the video establishes premeditation and motive in Appellant's own words. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court's admission of the rap video montage.