Court Opinion

ID: 9844730
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 03:07:38.817453+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:15:41.130960
License: Public Domain

BISTLINE, Justice,
dissenting.
This case following in the tradition of State v. Moore, 120 Idaho 743, 819 P.2d 1143 (1991), and State v. Tolman, 121 Idaho 899, 828 P.2d 1304 (1992), is yet another example of the Court putting its judicial rubber stamp of approval on the all too common practice of putting a defendant on trial for uncharged crimes. This practice is *183nothing more than an obvious attempt to persuade the jury that “if he did it once, he did it this time too.” That is exactly the kind of argument that I.R.E. 404(b) is supposed to prevent, and I dissent from this Court’s continuing emasculation of the rule.
In my view, Justice Johnson’s dissent in State v. Moore forcefully demonstrates why I.R.E. 404(b) does not permit the admission of the type of evidence admitted here.
As I understand the scope of the ‘common scheme or plan’ exception, it is not enough that the other crime was similar to the offense charged. The crimes must have been perpetrated pursuant to a ‘common scheme or plan embracing the commission of two or more crimes so related to each other that proof of one tends to establish the other.’ I cannot accept the Court’s conclusion that it is enough if there is a ‘continuing series of alleged similar sexual encounters directed at the young female children living within [the accused’s] household.’
Moore, 120 Idaho at 749, 819 P.2d at 1149 (Johnson, J. dissenting).
In this case, the alleged common scheme or plan started sixteen years before the charged events. To say events separated by such a long period of time constitute anything except evidence tending to show a general propensity to commit sex offenses simply strains credibility. Of course, I.R.E. 404(b) expressly forbids the admission of “[e]vidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts to prove the character of the person in order to show that he acted in conformity therewith.”
The majority also states the allegations against Phillips were admissible to corroborate the complaining witness’s testimony. However,
in this case, there was no requirement that the victim’s testimony be corroborated____ Corroboration is not listed as an exception to the rule and there is no basis for us to perpetuate an exception that goes beyond the rule.
State v. Moore, 120 Idaho at 751, 819 P.2d at 1151 (Johnson, J. dissenting).
I agree with Justice Johnson’s cogent analysis in Moore. While Moore may at one time have been palatable, its immediate demise would better serve the administration of justice in the Idaho system of criminal law.