Court Opinion

ID: 9730080
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 15:00:31.224958+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:03.977141
License: Public Domain

Krivosha, C. J.,
dissenting.
I regret that I must respectfully dissent from the majority opinion in this case. In my view there was no basis upon which *213the testimony of the three students could have been admissible in evidence under the provisions of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-404(2) (Reissue 1979).
As noted by the majority, evidence of other crimes for the purpose of proving the defendant’s propensity to commit such crime is inadmissible. Section 27-404(2) specifically provides in part: “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.” Only if the evidence is offered as an exception to the general rule is it admissible. Section 27-404(2) goes on to provide: “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.” In view of the nature of the crimes charged, issues such as motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, or absence of mistake or accident were not at issue, and the evidence of the three students would have been totally irrelevant if offered to establish any of those elements.
The State argues, however, that it had the burden of establishing identity and, therefore, the evidence of the three girls was admissible to establish identity. I agree that the burden was upon the State to establish and prove identity; I do not believe that the testimony of the three girls was either necessary, relevant, or admissible to prove identity. It could only prove propensity to commit a crime.
In the first instance, counsel for Baker admitted to the jury in his opening statement that there was no dispute about the act having taken place, the dispute simply being over whether it was consensual. Additionally, the victim herself testified for the State in its case in chief, identifying Baker as the individual with whom the alleged act was committed. That testimony was more than sufficient to make a prima facie case.
Courts which have considered the matter of evidence of other crimes to prove identity have recognized that more than a mere similarity in the classification of the acts and attendant circumstances must be shown or the evidence is simply not relevant within the meaning of the act. In the case of People v. Guerrero, 16 Cal. 3d 719, 548 P.2d 366, 129 Cal. Rptr. 166 *214(1976), the California Supreme Court had before it for review a judgment of conviction for first degree murder. In determining that evidence of a prior uncharged rape involving a different victim was inadmissible, the California court said at 725, 548 P.2d at 369,129 Cal. Rptr. at 169:
On the issue of identity the evidence of the Lopez crime is not only cumulative, it is also irrelevant. New of the asserted similarities between the Lopez and Santana offenses aid in placing defendant at the scene of the alleged murder. ... If the victim had been attacked in a distinctive manner that was identical to a previous crime defendant had committed, then the evidence of the other crime might have probative value. But the only claimed connection that has any logical relevance is evidence of “sexual activity” in both cases and the possible use of a wrench. Even if both facts were established ... it could not reasonably be claimed that the two offenses were committed in a particularly distinct manner that tends to inculpate defendant.
There was simply nothing unique about the manner in which the crime charged was committed to bring it within the “identity” exception to § 27-404(2).
Federal courts which have reviewed the question of identity under the federal act similar to § 27-404(2) have generally held that mere similarity does not establish identity so as to permit the introduction of other crimes, acts, or wrongs for the purpose of establishing identity. Rather, the act must bear such a high degree of similarity as to mark it as the handiwork of the accused, much like a fingerprint. See, United States v. Silva, 580 F.2d 144 (5th Cir. 1978); United States v. Myers, 550 F.2d 1036 (5th Cir. 1977); United States v. Solomon, 490 F. Supp. 373 (S.D. Ga. 1980). It is generally held that unless the crime is so distinctive in nature that there is a reasonable likelihood that it could not have been committed by anyone else, the admission of such evidence only establishes the accused’s propensity or disposition to commit a crime and is, under the clear language of the rule or state statutes, irrelevant and inadmissible. Anything less would seem to totally eliminate the prohibition of § 27-404(2). For a full discussion on the matter, see Krivosha, *215Lansworth, Pirsch, Relevancy: The Necessary Element in Using Evidence of Other Crimes, Wrongs, or Bad Acts to Convict, 60 Neb. L. Rev. 657 (1981).
This general view is consistent with the decisions of our court, although admittedly there have occasionally been decisions to the contrary. In State v. Casados, 188 Neb. 91, 195 N.W.2d 210 (1972), we examined the purpose of the rule prohibiting the introduction of other crimes, wrongs, or acts, and said at 95, 195 N.W.2d at 213:
“One basic reason for the rule is that such evidence is apt to be given too much weight, rather than too little, by the jury, thus resulting in the conviction of a defendant because he is a bad man and not because of his specific guilt of the offense with which he is charged.”
And in State v. Franklin, 194 Neb. 630, 642-43, 234 N.W.2d 610, 617-18 (1975), we said:
The defendant’s third assignment relates to the admission of the park caretaker’s testimony that the defendant had committed another act of sodomy with a different person 3 weeks prior to the act charged. It is the usual rule that in a criminal prosecution evidence of crimes committed by the accused, other than that with which he is charged, is not admissible. State v. Brown, 190 Neb. 96, 206 N.W.2d 331. An exception to the above rule is that evidence of similar offenses is admissible where an element of the crime charged is motive, a particular criminal intent, or guilty knowledge. State v. Ray, 191 Neb. 702, 217 N.W.2d 176; State v. Young, 190 Neb. 325, 208 N.W.2d 267; State v. Rich, 183 Neb. 128, 158 N.W.2d 533. The State concedes that no such motive, criminal intent, or guilty knowledge is an element of the crime here charged. Another exception to the general rule is that in prosecutions for rape, incest, and sodomy, testimony that the defendant committed the same or similar acts against the prosecutrix is admissible for its corroborative value. Smith v. State, 127 Neb. 776, 257 N.W. 59. Evidence of similar crimes with third persons is not admissible. Henry v. State, 136 Neb. 454, 286 N.W. 338; Nickolizack v. State, 75 Neb. 27, 105 N.W. 895.
*216The evidence of alleged other crimes, if indeed the testimony established a crime or bad act, offered in this case does not fall within the generally recognized exception for establishing identity. None of the witnesses could do more than testify that a black man with a mustache, driving an automobile having a license plate identical with the automobile owned by Baker, asked each of the witnesses whether she wanted to go for a ride. Such evidence does not identify the defendant as one charged with the crime of attempted first degree sexual assault or false imprisonment in the first degree. We have simply permitted the introduction of evidence tending to show Baker’s propensity to potentially commit a crime, in order to show he is a “bad man.”
While the evidence, absent that offered by the three witnesses, was more than sufficient to establish Baker’s guilt, it cannot be said to have been harmless error. As we noted in State v. Atwater, 193 Neb. 563, 565-66, 228 N.W.2d 274, 275 (1975):
The evidence against the defendant was more than adequate. Possibly in the past we have been too lenient in excusing these transgressions under the guise of harmless error, and the prosecution has concluded that anything goes. Defendants must be given fair trials, and it is the responsibility of the prosecution to see that each defendant receives one. Harmless error is intended to cover those inadvertent slips, which occasionally creep into a hotly contested trial, which do not severely prejudice the rights of the defendant. Harmless error should never be applied in those instances where the prosecution deliberately, or because of very careless procedures, injects prejudicial error into the proceedings.
By affirming this conviction we have advised the prosecution that it may introduce evidence of any other crime, wrong, or act if it can in any manner be suggested that it has some relevance, even with regard to facts not in issue. I believe that we have effectively repealed the provisions of § 27-404(2) and that we should not do so. For that reason I would have found that the introduction of the testimony objected to by Baker was prejudicial error.
Grant, J., joins in this dissent.