Court Opinion

ID: 9699760
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 20:50:27.590177+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:56.802457
License: Public Domain

*395WILNER, Chief Judge, concurring.
I concur in the result reached by the panel majority because I agree that the trial court erred in allowing Dr. Perrone to testify to his opinion of Wallach’s speed. I do not agree, however, that evidence of Wallach’s prior conviction for conspiracy was necessarily inadmissible. I would hold the evidence of a prior conviction for conspiracy to be eligible for admission, subject to the balancing process required by Rule l-502(a).
The gist of a criminal conspiracy is the unlawful agreement, not the object of the agreement. The agreement is one that necessarily anticipates, and indeed is devoted to, the commission of one or more illegal acts, and therefore contains an element of furtiveness and malevolent deliberation not necessarily implicit in the mere act of distributing controlled substances. The nature of the particular conspiracy can be considered in the balancing process. I do not regard this case as controlled by Giddens v. State.