Court Opinion

ID: 9596336
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 00:48:32.10579+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:10:15.007314
License: Public Domain

COOPER, Justice,
dissenting.
Appellant was charged with shooting two men at Joker’s Bar in Louisville on the night of November 18-19, 2000. Appellant did not contest that he was present in the bar on two occasions that night, but denied being the shooter or being present when the shots were fired. Thus, the only fact in issue was whether Appellant did or did not fire the shots. Appellant claims that he has legally changed his name on two occasions in the past, most recently in 1996 when he changed it from James Clayton Woodard to Bo Clark. As the majority opinion correctly notes, this fact is “not specifically relevant to the crime.” Ante, at 65. Yet, the Commonwealth was permitted to use this fact to prove that Appellant (1) was charged with three unrelated criminal offenses and (2) gave the police an arguably false identification on each occasion.
Officer Hellinger testified that on November 22, 2000, two days after the shooting and before anyone identified Appellant as the alleged shooter, he went to Appellant’s residence to serve an unrelated arrest warrant on “James Woodard,” and that Appellant first identified himself as “Bo Clark,” then admitted that he was formerly known as James Woodard.
*71Deputy Sheriff Jensen testified that on February 18, 2001, he stopped Appellant for a traffic offense. When Jensen asked Appellant for identification, Appellant told him that his name was “James Woodard” and recited his social security number. When Jensen checked the number, he learned that it had been assigned to “Bo Clark.”
Detective Jones testified that when he arrested Appellant for the instant offenses on April 17, 2001, Appellant was in court on unrelated charges. Jones testified that when he asked Appellant if his name was “James Clayton Woodard,” Appellant replied that his name was “Bo Clark,” but later admitted that his former name was James Clayton Woodard.
It is elementary that evidence of “other crimes, wrongs or acts” is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show a criminal disposition or propensity. KRE 404(b); Pendleton v. Commonwealth, Ky., 685 S.W.2d 549, 552 (1985). To be admissible, such evidence must satisfy the three-part test of Bell v. Commonwealth, Ky., 875 S.W.2d 882 (1994), viz: (1) Is the evidence relevant? (2) Does it have probative value? (3) Is its probative value substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect? Id. at 889-91.

1. Relevancy.

‘With respect to the first inquiry, courts have emphasized the importance of requiring that the ‘other crimes’ evidence be offered to prove material facts that are in actual dispute.” Robert G. Lawson, The Kentucky Evidence Law Handbook § 2.25[3][b], at 127 (4th ed. LexisNexis 2003). As an example, Professor Lawson cites the pre-Rules case of Arnett v. Commonwealth, Ky., 470 S.W.2d 834 (1971), a murder case in which the prosecution introduced evidence that earlier on the day of the murder, the defendant flourished a pistol during a confrontation with a person other than the murder victim. Id. at 836. According to the Commonwealth, the purpose of this evidence was to show that the defendant possessed a weapon that could have been used to commit the murder. Id. However, since the defendant freely admitted possessing the weapon at the time of the homicide, the “other crimes” evidence was inadmissible because it had no relevance other than to show the defendant’s propensity for violence. Id. at 837. See also Alexander v. Commonwealth, Ky., 450 S.W.2d 808, 809 (1970) (evidence in storehouse breaking case that defendant was in possession of other items of stolen property not relevant to prove motive or guilty knowledge). The Commonwealth argues that Hellinger’s testimony was relevant to prove that Appellant lived in Louisville, not Indianapolis. But since Appellant admitted he was not only in Louisville but also in Joker’s Bar on the night of the shootings, the location of his residence was not a material issue.
The majority opinion correctly notes that evidence that a defendant lied about his identity or gave the police an alias at the time of his arrest on the charged offense would be evidence of consciousness of guilt and within the “other purpose” exception in KRE 404(b)(1). Adkins v. Commonwealth, Ky., 96 S.W.3d 779, 793 (2003). See also United States v. Ramirez-Jiminez, 967 F.2d 1321 (9th Cir.1992):
[T]he testimony objected to by appellant concerned acts made during and in furtherance of the crimes for which appellant was indicted ....
[T]he main source of prejudice would come from the jury drawing a permissible inference — namely that appellant was cognizant of the illegal act he was committing, and was therefore lying to cover his guilt.
Id. at 1327-28 (emphasis added).
The problem here is that the allegedly false identification given to Officer Helling*72er on November 22, 2000, and to Deputy Jensen on February 18, 2001, was in reference to completely different charges than the ones for which he was being tried in this case. Thus, while the allegedly false identification evidence might have been relevant evidence at a trial of those respective charges, it was completely irrelevant to whether he was the shooter at Joker’s Bar on November 18-19, 2000. It only tended to prove that he was a liar who possessed a disposition or propensity for criminal conduct. While the allegedly false identification Appellant gave to Detective Jones when he was arrested on April 17, 2001, was marginally relevant (assuming it was false), evidence that the arrest occurred while Appellant was in court facing other, unrelated charges was irrelevant except to compound the proof of his general propensity to criminal conduct.

2. Probativeness.

This aspect of the Bell test relates to whether there is sufficient evidence that the “other crime, wrong, or act” actually occurred. Bell, 875 S.W.2d at 890; Lawson, supra, § 2.25[3][e], at 130-31. If Appellant’s name really is “Bo Clark” and not “James Clayton Woodard,” Appellant did not he either to Officer Hellinger or to Detective Jones. If he intended to give a false name to Deputy Jensen, it seems odd that he would have furnished Jensen with his social security number knowing that the number would identify him as “Bo Clark.” Given the circumstances surrounding the three incidents in question, a jury could not reasonably infer that the alleged prior bad acts (giving the arresting officers a false name) even occurred. Compare Parker v. Commonwealth, Ky., 952 S.W.2d 209, 214 (1997).

3. Prejudice.

The trial court concluded that the prejudicial effect of this evidence did not substantially outweigh its probative value. KRE 403. However, since proof that Appellant resided in Louisville and that he was conscious of his guilt of unrelated offenses was irrelevant to prove any material fact at issue in this case, there was no probative value to weigh. The prejudicial effect of evidence that Appellant was charged with three unrelated offenses is obvious. Thus, I conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting this evidence.
Accordingly, I dissent.
KELLER, J., joins this dissenting opinion.