Court Opinion

ID: 9602381
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 01:53:57.51923+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:03:09.089411
License: Public Domain

HALL, Justice
(dissenting):
I do not agree with the interpretation the majority opinion places upon U.C.A., 1953, 76-2-303(6).
The statute in question is not to be viewed as providing a unique rule of evidence applicable only where the defense of entrapment is raised. On the contrary, it simply states a widely accepted general principle of the law of evidence, applicable to all criminal prosecutions, viz: that evidence of a criminal act, other than relating to a crime charged, is not admissible. Needless to say, there are usually exceptions to every general rule, and such is the case here. The statute itself, in the same sentence, states one exception that permits cross-examination of a defendant as to his prior convictions for felonies.
Further notable exceptions to the general rule have been recognized in both federal and state systems and have been made the subject of specific rules of procedure.1
Utah has adopted a rule of evidence2 which is identical to the uniform rule 3 and which renders evidence of prior crime “admissible when relevant to prove some other fact . . . .” This Court has ruled upon the admissibility of such evidence on numerous occasions and, specifically in an entrapment case, has ruled that evidence of other criminal activity was properly admitted when offered to show the state of mind of the defendant.4
*169Evidence of prior crimes and wrongdoings is clearly relevant evidence and the only justification for excluding it is that its relevance is outweighed by its prejudicial effect. Such is not the case here. The trial court properly applied the law in admitting evidence of prior contacts between Officer Ledford and the defendant.
I would affirm.

. Rule 55, Uniform Rules of Evidence, 1953, closely patterned after the Federal Rules of Evidence.

. Rule 55, Utah Rules of Evidence.

. Supra, footnote 1.

. State v. Kasai, 27 Utah 2d 326, 495 P.2d 1265 (1972).