Opinion ID: 1959182
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Information Concerning Other Relationships with Women

Text: Defendant argues that prejudicial information concerning his relationships with women was wrongfully admitted at both phases of the proceeding in contravention of Evidence Rule 55. In this regard he points to the disclosure that he was seeing his thirteen year old co-participant in these crimes, that when he arrived at police headquarters to turn himself in he was accompanied by a young lady, that he was dating Marilyn Howard during the early months of 1984 while also bigamously married to Bernice Simmons and carrying on a sexual relationship with Antoinette James, and that he had fathered four children. Those he characterized as the introduction of crimes and/or civil wrongs. Defendant's objection to that information would be more properly based on its prejudicial impact under Evidence Rule 4, because those facts were not adduced to give rise to an inference of guilt to the crimes charged. Rule 55 provides that evidence that a person committed a crime or civil wrong on a specified occasion, is inadmissible to prove his disposition to commit crime or civil wrong as the basis for an inference that he committed a crime or civil wrong on another specified occasion but ... is admissible to prove some other fact in issue.... None of those disclosures was made in attempts to prove that defendant had committed the crimes in question, but they were properly presented in relation to other issues. The determination of admissibility is largely a matter within the discretion of the trial judge. State v. Allison, 208 N.J. Super. 9, 177, 504 A. 2d 1184 (App.Div. 1985). We find that trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the admissibility of these relationships with defendant. In the course of detailing his efforts to locate the defendant, Detective Eutsey told the jury that he had located Kisha, a young woman defendant had been seeing. Defense counsel moved for a mistrial based on that information, but the trial court denied the motion, explaining that I don't see how that prejudices the defendant. The detective also noted that defendant arrived at police headquarters accompanied by another woman. All of those disclosures are generally relevant to the issue of defendant's guilt of the crimes charged. The fact that the co-participant is very young is relevant to whether the defendant acted knowingly or purposefully, and the efforts of Detective Eutsey to locate defendant and his subsequent arrest of Kisha similarly are related to the overall issue of defendant's identification. The trial court validly exercised its discretion with respect to these facts. Ms. Howard testified that defendant had told her he was having sexual relations with Antoinette James, and that the Basses had pressed rape charges against him. The court held that information that defendant was dating Ms. Howard was relevant to the jury assessment of Ms. Howard's credibility, and that the nature of the relationship was not overly significant. Evidence of defendant's bigamy was derived from various sources. William Campbell was presented by the defense during the penalty phase of the trial to testify about defendant's suicide attempt, which he said occurred as defendant left the home of his wife, as proof of his despair over the departure of Bernice Simmons and his son. In an effort to show the friendly nature of their relationship and any corresponding bias, the State asked the witness how he knew defendant. Mr. Campbell explained that they were acquainted through their respective wives. The prosecutor then elicited testimony that the wife Mr. Campbell was referring to was a different woman from Bernice Simmons, and that it was the home of this woman that defendant left immediately before driving his car into a wall. Defense objected to any questioning about the wife. The prosecutor responded that the defense had put him on to testify that the man came out and drove his car into a brick wall after talking to his wife. The court permitted the questioning. That information was clearly proper to rebut the inference that the suicide attempt was related to Bernice Simmons, as well as to the credibility of the witness. Evidence Rule 20 permits any party to examine a witness on any issue relevant to credibility. Similarly, the State asked Ms. McDougald if she had told Bernice Simmons about defendant's other wife before the two had married. The prosecutor asserted that this issue was relevant to her credibility in showing that the witness was protecting her son. Later Bernice Simmons testified that Ms. McDougald had in fact told her about the other marriage. The use of this inconsistency in Ms. McDougald's trial testimony is proper. A defense witness is subject to impeachment, and use of prior inconsistent statements is proper. State v. DiRienzo, 53 N.J. 360, 383, 251 A. 2d 99 (1969). Finally, disclosure that defendant had other children was also proper to rebut the extent of his distress over losing his infant son. Defense counsel brought out the fact that Bernice Simmons had given birth to another of defendant's children while in South Carolina. Moreover, the trial court exercised its discretion in determining that these facts were not unduly prejudicial to defendant, and therefore properly admitted. Only where an abuse of discretion is palpable will those rulings be disturbed. Ostroski v. Mount Prospect Shop-Rite, Inc., 94 N.J. Super. 374, 382, 228 A. 2d 545 (App.Div. 1967).