Court Opinion

ID: 7712894
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-30 19:14:30.817542+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:27:21.971527
License: Public Domain

I conclude that the evidence of Carter's 1977 conviction is not admissible pursuant to Rule 404(b), Ala.R.Evid. The Alabama Rules of Evidence became effective January 1, *Page 264 
1996, and they govern this case. Rule 404(b) states:
 "(b) Other Crimes, Wrongs, or Acts. Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action 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. . . ."
(Emphasis added.) Floyd seeks to introduce the 1977 conviction for purposes of showing that the Macon County Commission had knowledge, or a reason to know, that Carter would make unwanted sexual advances, an element of her negligent-hiring cause of action. See Big B, Inc. v. Cottingham, 634 So.2d 999
(Ala. 1993). The trial court, ruling that the conviction was too remote, would not admit the conviction into evidence. Several federal jurisdictions require that in order for a conviction to be admissible pursuant to the Rule 404(b) "other purpose" doctrine, the prior conviction must not be too remote. UnitedStates v. Hinton, 31 F.3d 817 (9th Cir. 1994), cert. denied,513 U.S. 1100, 115 S.Ct. 773, 130 L.Ed.2d 669 (1995); Jankins v.TDC Management Corp., 21 F.3d 436 (D.C. Cir. 1994); UnitedStates v. Obiuwevbi, 962 F.2d 1236 (7th Cir. 1992); UnitedStates v. Fields, 871 F.2d 188 (1st Cir. 1989); and UnitedStates v. Dudley, 562 F.2d 965 (5th Cir. 1977). I agree with Judge Holmes that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by barring the admission of the 1977 conviction on the basis that it was too remote.