Court Opinion

ID: 9672781
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 04:00:14.597292+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:18.254770
License: Public Domain

HEFFERNAN, C. J.
(concurring with dissenting opinion). I agree wholeheartedly with the dissent of Justice Abrahamson except for her interpretation of McClelland. McClelland was determined not on the basis of prior crimes evidence and whether or not probativeness was outweighed by prejudice, but was instead decided completely on what we referred to in McClelland as “the generalized rule” that the introduction of collateral matters by extrinsic proof was impermissible. We concluded that the proof made by the extrinsic evidence in McClelland constituted plain error. Although the question was posed in respect to the weighing of proba-tiveness as compared to prejudice, and there was some discussion of the judge’s role in that respect, the decision in McClelland was not based on that evidentiary problem. Accordingly, I disagree only with the interpretation of McClelland. In all other respects, I join the dissent.