Opinion ID: 3211934
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: independent relevance is

Text: THE ADMISSIBILITY STANDARD FOR EVIDENCE OFFERED UNDER RULE 404(2) Because the majority has drifted from our rule 404 jurisprudence, I believe it is necessary to restate the rule’s admission requirements under our precedents. Apart from exceptions that are not at issue here, rule 404(1) provides that “[e]vidence of a person’s character or a trait of his or her character is not admissible for the purpose of proving that he or she acted in conformity therewith on a particular occasion . . . .” Section 27-404(2) similarly prohibits proving a defendant’s conforming behavior with a character trait through evidence of a defend­ant’s acts that are extrinsic to the charged crime: Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show that he or she acted in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident. In 1987, this court held that evidence showing a defend­ ant’s consciousness of guilt is relevant to support an inference that the defendant committed the charged crime. We further held that rule 404(2) governs consciousness of guilt 2 Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-403 (Reissue 2008). - 809 - Nebraska A dvance Sheets 293 Nebraska R eports STATE v. OLDSON Cite as 293 Neb. 718 evidence.3 So the standard of admissibility for consciousness of guilt evidence is the same as the standard for evidence offered for any other purpose under rule 404(2): independent relevance. To be independently relevant for a proponent’s stated purpose, evidence offered under rule 404(2) must not depend upon a forbidden propensity inference about the defend­ ant’s character: Rule 404(2) prohibits the admission of other bad acts evidence for the purpose of demonstrating a person’s propensity to act in a certain manner. But evidence of other crimes which is relevant for any purpose other than to show the actor’s propensity is admissible under rule 404(2). Evidence that is offered for a proper purpose is often referred to as having a “special” or “independent” relevance, which means that its relevance does not depend upon its tendency to show propensity. An appellate court’s analysis under rule 404(2) considers (1) whether the evidence was relevant for some purpose other than to prove the character of a person to show that he or she acted in conformity therewith; (2) whether the probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by its potential for unfair prejudice; and (3) whether the trial court, if requested, instructed the jury to consider the evidence only for the limited purpose for which it was admitted.4 3 See, State v. Clancy, 224 Neb. 492, 398 N.W.2d 710 (1987), disapproved in part on other grounds, State v. Culver, 233 Neb. 228, 444 N.W.2d 662 (1989), abrogated on other grounds, J. E. B. v. Alabama ex rel. T. B., 511 U.S. 127, 114 S. Ct. 1419, 128 L. Ed. 2d 89 (1994). But see State v. Robinson, 271 Neb. 698, 715 N.W.2d 531 (2006). 4 State v. McGuire, 286 Neb. 494, 511-12, 837 N.W.2d 767, 784-85 (2013). Accord, e.g., State v. Almasaudi, 282 Neb. 162, 802 N.W.2d 110 (2011); State v. Collins, 281 Neb. 927, 799 N.W.2d 693 (2011); State v. Chavez, 281 Neb. 99, 793 N.W.2d 347 (2011); State v. Baker, 280 Neb. 752, 789 N.W.2d 702 (2010); State v. Sanchez, 257 Neb. 291, 597 N.W.2d 361 (1999); State v. McManus, 257 Neb. 1, 594 N.W.2d 623 (1999). - 810 - Nebraska A dvance Sheets 293 Nebraska R eports STATE v. OLDSON Cite as 293 Neb. 718 We have specifically held that evidence of a defendant’s extrinsic act lacked independent relevance when a fact finder could have only found that it was relevant through classic propensity reasoning about the defendant’s character.5 To facilitate appellate review of independent relevance under rule 404(2), we require the proponent to state its purpose when offering the evidence. We also require the trial court to state the purpose for which it was admitted: A proponent of evidence offered pursuant to rule 404(2) shall, upon objection to its admissibility, be required to state on the record the specific purpose or purposes for which the evidence is being offered, and the trial court shall similarly state the purpose or purposes for which such evidence is received. And any limiting instruction given upon receipt of such evidence shall likewise identify only those specific purposes for which the evidence was received.6 We first set out this procedural requirement and our admissibility standard of independent relevance in 1999.7 Both rules are well-established components of our rule 404 jurisprudence.8 Nevertheless, the majority, in a tortuous analysis, relies on secondary authorities to undermine that jurisprudence. Worse, they suggest independent relevance has the same meaning as the pre-1999, standardless rule that we have abandoned. The majority does not state that a fact finder’s chain of reasoning must not depend on propensity reasoning about the 5 See, State v. Ellis, 281 Neb. 571, 799 N.W.2d 267 (2011); State v. Trotter, 262 Neb. 443, 632 N.W.2d 325 (2001); Sanchez, supra note 4; McManus, supra note 4. See, also, State v. Sutton, 16 Neb. App. 185, 741 N.W.2d 713 (2007). 6 Almasaudi, supra note 4, 282 Neb. at 179, 802 N.W.2d at 125. Accord, e.g., Collins, supra note 4; Sanchez, supra note 4. 7 See, Sanchez, supra note 4; McManus, supra note 4. 8 See cases cited supra notes 4 through 6. - 811 - Nebraska A dvance Sheets 293 Nebraska R eports STATE v. OLDSON Cite as 293 Neb. 718 defendant’s character. Instead, it cites a legal encyclopedia and states that extrinsic evidence that “only incidentally impugns a defendant’s character is not prohibited by rule 404.” It cites a legal commentator who has pointed out that evidence of a defendant’s extrinsic bad acts always contains legitimate and illegitimate inferences. From this, the majority makes a giant leap to draw this erroneous conclusion: Rule 404(2) permits introduction of relevant evidence concerning the occurrence of “other crimes, wrongs, or acts,” so long as the sole purpose for the offer is not to establish a defendant’s propensity to act in a particular manner, and thereby supply a basis for the inference that the defendant committed the crime charged. (Emphasis supplied.) But we have rejected this reasoning by adopting our independent relevance standard. Moreover, the two Nebraska cases that the majority cites do not support its conclusion. One of the cited cases, State v. McGuire,9 is the most recent statement of our independent relevance standard that is set out above. I am puzzled how citing the correct standard supports the majority’s misstatement of the standard. We decided the other cited case, State v. Yager,10 in 1990, before we adopted the independent relevance standard in 1999. Under the standardless rule urged by the majority, anything goes. And the majority’s reliance on a pre-1999 case ignores our concern about rule 404’s potential “to trample on a defendant’s right to a fair trial.”11 That recurring concern resulted in adopting the independent relevance test and its related procedural requirements in 1999. Our independent relevance standard guards against the danger that jurors will overestimate the value of extrinsic acts and convict a defendant for an improper reason.12 And the m ­ ajority 9 McGuire, supra note 4. 10 See State v. Yager, 236 Neb. 481, 461 N.W.2d 741 (1990). 11 See id. at 500, 461 N.W.2d at 752 (Shanahan, J., dissenting). 12 See McManus, supra note 4. - 812 - Nebraska A dvance Sheets 293 Nebraska R eports STATE v. OLDSON Cite as 293 Neb. 718 saps that principle by implying that extrinsic acts evidence should be admissible unless the proponent’s sole purpose is to establish a defendant’s propensity to act in conformity with a character trait. To the contrary, it is because jurors usually cannot ignore a propensity inference, even when a court properly instructs them, that legal commentators have advocated the independent relevance test that we adopted in 1999.13 Finally, and most important, the majority’s statements are contrary to the statute itself. Rule 404(2) does not provide that extrinsic acts are admissible if the proponent’s sole purpose is not to prove the defendant’s conforming behavior. Rule 404(2) precludes the use of extrinsic acts to prove a defendant acted in conformity with a character trait—period. It does not provide that extrinsic acts are admissible as proof of a defendant’s “motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident.” It provides that extrinsic acts evidence may be admissible for such purposes: (2) Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show that he or she acted in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident.14 So, contrary to the majority’s statement, the question is not whether a proponent has offered extrinsic acts evidence solely to prove a defendant’s propensity to act in conformity with a character trait. Such evidence would clearly be inadmissible in Nebraska. Under our independent relevance test, the question is whether the proponent’s evidence is relevant for 13 See, 1 Edward J. Imwinkelried, Uncharged Misconduct Evidence § 2:19 (rev. ed. 2002); 1 Christopher B. Mueller & Laird C. Kirkpatrick, Federal Evidence § 4:28 (4th ed. 2013); 22B Charles Alan Wright & Kenneth W. Graham, Jr., Federal Practice & Procedure § 5239 (Supp. 2014). 14 § 27-404(2) (emphasis supplied). - 813 - Nebraska A dvance Sheets 293 Nebraska R eports STATE v. OLDSON Cite as 293 Neb. 718 an ostensibly legitimate purpose only through the forbidden propensity reasoning. Although the majority’s statement may reflect the admissibility standard for a defendant’s extrinsic acts in some other jurisdictions,15 it is an incorrect statement of our standard under rule 404(2). The majority, not satisfied with misstating our admissibility standard for rule 404(2) evidence, goes even further. It states that “[i]f character evidence is admitted for a proper purpose, then, ipso facto, it is not admitted for the purpose of showing propensity.” This is misleading. We do not determine whether a court’s stated purpose for admitting rule 404(2) evidence was proper in a vacuum. The purpose is only proper if a fact finder could conclude the evidence is relevant to establish the proponent’s intended proof without engaging in propensity reasoning about the defendant’s character.