Opinion ID: 1326571
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Evidence Of Prior Offenses

Text: A police officer testified that Freeman had confessed that he made the pictures in evidence and that, on other occasions, he had fondled J.M., kissed her genitals, allowed her to handle and kiss his genitals, and masturbated in her presence. Freeman objected to the testimony as inadmissible evidence of prior crimes. The trial court overruled his objection but cautioned the jury that the officer's testimony could be considered as evidence showing motive or purpose which the defendant may have gone about making the pictures but was not to be taken by you as being evidence that he committed the offense for which he is now on trial. On appeal, Freeman maintains that the evidence should have been excluded as prejudicial, inflammatory, and irrelevant. The act of fondling and the act of photographing, he says, are totally different and an individual with a propensity for one is not necessarily going to have a propensity for the other. Generally, evidence of other offenses is inadmissible to prove the offense charged at bar. Cumbee v. Commonwealth, 219 Va. 1132, 1137-38, 254 S.E.2d 112, 116 (1979). But the general rule yields to certain well-defined exceptions. Evidence of other offenses is admissible if it shows the conduct and feeling of the defendant toward his alleged victim, if it establishes prior relations between the parties, or if it tends to prove any relevant element of the offense charged. Ryan v. Commonwealth, 219 Va. 439, 447, 247 S.E.2d 698, 704 (1978). See also, Moore v. Commonwealth, 222 Va. 72, 278 S.E.2d 822 (1981); Gibson v. Commonwealth, 216 Va. 412, 219 S.E.2d 845 (1975); Kirkpatrick v. Commonwealth, 211 Va. 269, 176 S.E.2d 802 (1970). The officer's testimony shows Freeman's conduct and feeling toward J.M. and their prior relationship. And it tends to prove relevant elements of the offense charged against him. The Commonwealth was required by the statute to prove as one of the elements of the offense that the pictures Freeman produced appealed to prurient interest. Freeman's sexual encounters with J.M. evince lascivious motivation. The fact that he had a prurient interest in the pictures he made was relevant to the jury's determination whether the pictures appealed to prurient interests generally. Production of the pictures was not a crime if they contained serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. Miller, 413 U.S. at 24, 93 S.Ct. at 2614; Code § 18.2-374.1(A)(3). Freeman's lascivious motivation in creating the sexually explicit material was also relevant to that element of the offense. [T]o aid a jury in the determination of whether the materials are obscene, the methods of their creation, promotion, or dissemination are relevant.... In essence, the Court has considered motivation relevant to the ultimate evaluation if the prosecution offers evidence of motivation. Pinkus, 436 U.S. at 303, 98 S.Ct. at 1814. See Code § 18.2-384(8)(c). The trial court carefully limited the jury's consideration of the officer's testimony to the question of motivation, and we are of opinion that the probative value of that testimony outweighed any potential prejudice.