Court Opinion

ID: 9709343
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 03:45:32.406452+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:47.931223
License: Public Domain

PRESIDING JUSTICE KNECHT, dissenting: I believe the majority mistakenly concludes it is unusual to find two armed robberies involving the same victim. The record does not disclose how many times or how often the Picadilly has been the scene of an armed robbery. In May, a 6-foot 1-inch-tall, clean-shaven, African-American male wearing a dark ball cap and sunglasses asked for cigarettes near the cash register of the Picadilly and thereafter used a small handgun to persuade two clerks to give up the money in the cash register and the lottery terminal. In July, five to six weeks later, a 6-foot 2-inch African-American male with facial hair wearing a white baseball cap and sunglasses asked to play the lottery at the Picadilly and then used a small, black handgun to persuade a single clerk to let the robber pull a $100 bill out of the cash register, after being shown the lottery terminal was empty. Two liquor store robberies five or six weeks apart by a man wearing a baseball hat and sunglasses — even if at the same liquor store and near closing time — are not distinctively similar. This behavior does not constitute modus operandi. The facts simply do not show a pattern of criminal behavior so distinctive that separate crimes can be recognized as the acts of the same person. One handgun had the metal coating worn off. The other was black. One robber wore a dark ball cap, the other a white ball cap. One robber made a point to have the clerks remove cash from the register and lottery terminal and place it in his hands. The other robber reached into the cash register beneath the cash tray and extracted a $100 bill. While it is easy after the trial to look back and catalog the similarities and dissimilarities so as to bolster one view or the other, the real point here is these robberies are not so unusual or distinctive as to justify the admission of evidence of the second robbery and identification. The prejudice to defendant far exceeds the probative value of the evidence, and the second identification and robbery were not critical components of the State’s case. I believe the trial court abused its discretion in admitting evidence of the July 7 armed robbery.