Court Opinion

ID: 9672780
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 04:00:14.593184+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:18.254178
License: Public Domain

STEINMETZ, J.
(concurring). I agree with the majority; however, I write to state my disagreement not only with the proposed result of the dissenting opinion, but also with its reasoning.
The modus operandi of the charged burglary and of the prior crime of burglary was not “one that is commonplace.” (Dissenting op. at 92.) I disagree with the state’s position referred to in the dissenting opinion that one previous crime such as this one should not be used as a modus operandi exception to other crimes evidence. I know of no studies nor statistics that deal with the nature of burglaries to lead to a conclusion that the modus operandi of these burglaries was commonplace.
The dissent attempts to minimize the unique character of this burglary by stating that there are law enforce*81ment publications which caution the public to take special precautions in order to avoid burglaries during funerals. Advice on how to lessen the possibilities of being a victim of crime does not bear on the frequency of a particular method of crime commission. Such advice helps only to point out areas where potential victims of crime can do something to lessen their vulnerability.
The modus operandi involved is the invasion of houses when chances are great the occupants will be attending scheduled and publicized wakes and burials. Even if this modus operandi occurs with some degree of frequency, it is a particularly stylized method of burglary and is probative of a method of committing burglary. There is no mathematical formula for equating modus operandi. To study death notices in planning and committing burglaries is evidence not only of antisocial behavior but also a disregard for the rights and privacy of victims. This behavior is a planned invasion of the homes of persons who have suffered a personal loss of a loved one and therefore becomes an identifiable act which cannot be classified as just another burglary. The ghoulish behavior of a thief entering a person’s home, which is vacant due to the occupants’ attendance at a burial, shows a less than human attitude. I do not believe the lack of decent human conduct evidenced by reading obituary notices for planning an uninterrupted burglary is commonplace. It is akin to the moral deficiency of the grave robbers of history. To commit a burglary once in this manner deserves society’s condemnation. To do it twice, as this defendant did, has value in considering as his modus operandi. I find that the identical facts of these two burglaries establish a modus operandi exception for the evidence, not just evidence that the defendant is a person of bad character.
I agree also with the majority that the unique but similarly identifiable characteristics of the two crimes *82allow use of other crimes evidence to prove identity and intent based on the defendant’s explanation of his presence at the scene of the charged burglary.
I am authorized to state that Justices William G. Callow and Roland B. Day join in this concurring opinion.