Opinion ID: 2425747
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Evidence of Other Crimes and Prior Bad Acts

Text: For his second point for reversal, Appellant argues that the trial court erred in allowing the State to present evidence of other crimes and prior bad acts in which he participated. Specifically, Appellant challenges the admission of (1) evidence of the forgeries and burglaries that occurred both prior to and after the murder, and (2) evidence of the beating of Clinton Spears. Rule 404(b) of the Arkansas Rules of Evidence provides that evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show that he acted in conformity therewith, but such evidence is admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident. Johnson v. State, 333 Ark. 673, 972 S.W.2d 935 (1998). Evidence offered under Rule 404(b) must be independently relevant, thus having a tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more or less probable than it would be without the evidence. Id. The admission or rejection of evidence under Rule 404(b) is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court, and this court will not reverse absent a showing of manifest abuse. Echols v. State, 326 Ark. 917, 936 S.W.2d 509 (1996), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1244, 117 S.Ct. 1853, 137 L.Ed.2d 1055 (1997). Correspondingly, the trial court has the discretion to determine whether prejudicial evidence substantially outweighs its probative value, and its judgment will be upheld absent a manifest abuse of discretion. Parker v. State, 333 Ark. 137, 968 S.W.2d 592 (1998). It was the State's theory that Appellant was the leader of a forgery ring, giving stolen checks to the other members of the group and instructing them to cash the checks and bring back the money. The State contended that such evidence showed how Appellant manipulated the group to carry out his criminal objectives. The State contended further that it was necessary to discuss the forgeries to set the scene of the murder and the subsequent flight from authorities. Additionally, the State argued that evidence of the burglaries, during which the checks and property found at Appellant's house were taken, specifically showed Appellant's motive to kill Melbourne because only he and Melbourne knew where the property was hidden. Thus, when the police came to the house and recovered the stolen property, Appellant knew that Melbourne had talked to the police, as he was the only other person who knew about the property. This theory was supported by Epps's testimony that Appellant said that someone had to snitch and the only two people that knows where it was was me and John. The trial court, being familiar with the evidence from having already presided over McFarland's and Epps's trials, ruled: I see no way of trying this case without the wholeall the events leading up [to] the murder of Mr. Melbourne starts out with a forgery and with these various individuals there in the house when the police come to look for and find stolen property in back of the house. The whole circumstances of the case is just unavoidable. To explain the circumstances leading up [to] the crime, I don't see how else to deal with it. We concur with the trial court's assessment of the situation. Our court has repeatedly held that all the circumstances surrounding a particular crime may be shown, even if those circumstances would constitute a separate criminal act or acts, when the criminal acts are intermingled and contemporaneous with one another. Brown v. State, 305 Ark. 53, 54-55, 805 S.W.2d 73, 74 (1991) (citing Wilson v. State, 298 Ark. 608, 770 S.W.2d 123 (1989); Henderson v. State, 284 Ark. 493, 684 S.W.2d 231 (1985)). Furthermore, this court has repeatedly held that when the purpose of the evidence is to show a motive for killing, anything and everything that might have influenced the commission of the act may, as a rule, be shown. See, e.g., Lee v. State, 327 Ark. 692, 942 S.W.2d 231, cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 118 S.Ct. 572, 139 L.Ed.2d 412 (1997); Scott v. State, 325 Ark. 267, 924 S.W.2d 248 (1996). See also Johnson v. State, 326 Ark. 430, 934 S.W.2d 179 (1996), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1242, 117 S.Ct. 1848, 137 L.Ed.2d 1051 (1997) (holding that the relevance of circumstances that tie the perpetrator to the victim and raise a possible motive for the killing is patently obvious); Edgemon v. State, 275 Ark. 313, 630 S.W.2d 26 (1982) (upholding the trial court's ruling that evidence showing the defendant's involvement in a car-theft ring was relevant to the issue of whether he had reason to kill the victim). Here, the evidence of Appellant's participation in the uncharged acts of forgery and burglary was properly admitted as proof of his motive for killing Melbourne. The evidence of his flight to Utah and his subsequent arrest there was also properly admitted to show the circumstances surrounding the crime. Moreover, as discussed in the next section, that evidence supports the jury's conclusion that the murder was committed for the purpose of avoiding or preventing arrest. We thus find no error with the trial court's ruling. Likewise, we find no error with the trial court's decision to admit evidence of Appellant's participation in the beating of Clinton Spears. Page testified that a week or two before the murder, he met Appellant, McFarland, Melbourne, and Spears at the Harrison town square. They asked Page if he would drive them down Cottonwood Road, a remote country road, so they could smoke some marijuana. Page agreed to do so. They drove down Cottonwood Road and stopped in a field somewhere off the road. It was dark. They all got out of the car, and Appellant and McFarland immediately started whaling on Spears, punching and kicking him. Appellant and McFarland were doing most of the hitting, but Melbourne also participated. Page testified that they were beating Spears because he snitched on them for something. Page stated further that during the beating, Appellant stated numerous times that he wanted to kill Spears. At that point, Page told everyone to get into the car and they left. Spears refused to go with them, so they left him there. Page stated that Appellant and McFarland were equally in charge of beating Spears, but that Appellant had suggested where to go and where to stop. The State contended that evidence of Appellant's participation in the beating of Spears for snitching on them was relevant to show his motive for kidnapping, beating, and killing Melbourne. We agree. Evidence of a defendant's bad acts may be introduced if they tend to prove the defendant's motive for committing the crime at hand. Hodge v. State, 332 Ark. 377, 965 S.W.2d 766 (1998). To be admissible, there must be a very high degree of similarity between the charged crime and the prior uncharged act. Johnson, 333 Ark. 673, 972 S.W.2d 935. However, the degree of similarity between the charged crime and the prior uncharged act is a determination that affords considerable leeway to the trial judge and may vary with the purpose for which the evidence is admitted. Sasser v. State, 321 Ark. 438, 902 S.W.2d 773 (1995). Here, Appellant was accused of kidnapping and killing Melbourne because he had snitched to the police about Appellant's participation in the forgeries and burglaries. Only a week or two earlier, Appellant had participated in the beating of Clinton Spears because he, too, had snitched on him. The similarities between the two incidents are sufficient for admission under Rule 404(b). Both instances involved the members of Appellant's group finding someone to drive them and the victim to an isolated area where the victim was beaten and left behind. Both instances also involved threats made by Appellant to kill the victims. In both instances, Appellant directed the driver to the isolated area where the victim was to be taken. Moreover, in both instances the motivation for the attack was the group's suspicion that the victims had told the police about their illegal activities. Furthermore, the prior crime was committed sufficiently close in time to the charged crimes so as to have particular bearing on Appellant's motive and plan in committing the charged crimes. We cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in allowing the evidence of Appellant's participation in the beating of Spears, as it was independently relevant to show his plan, motive, and intent to kidnap and murder Melbourne. The State is entitled to produce evidence showing circumstances that explain the act, show a motive for killing, or illustrate the defendant's state of mind. Lee, 327 Ark. 692, 942 S.W.2d 231; Scott, 325 Ark. 267, 924 S.W.2d 248. The jury was properly instructed that such evidence was not to be considered to prove Appellant's character or that he acted in conformity therewith, but was merely offered as evidence of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, and knowledge of the crimes with which he was charged. We thus affirm the trial court's ruling on this issue.