Court Opinion

ID: 9518092
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 00:43:07.312981+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:27:19.419595
License: Public Domain

*124DALIANIS, J.,
concurring specially. Although the majority correctly holds that the defendant’s habitual heroin use was admissible in this case, I disagree with its mandate that the trial court must first determine whether there is sufficient evidence for a jury to find the defendant’s identity as the culprit before the State may introduce evidence that a defendant was a habitual heroin user in financial straits.
Like the majority, I believe that there is a logical connection between the challenged act(s) — habitual heroin use plus financial difficulties — and motive to commit the crime charged — burglary (entry with intent to commit a crime, such as theft) — that does not depend upon character-based propensity. Evidence that a person is actively addicted to heroin and lacks the financial means to support this addiction is relevant to show motive because this evidence has a tendency to prove that the person committed “a crime in order to gain money to buy drugs.” Adkins v. Com., 96 S.W.3d 779, 793 (Ky. 2003). The inference imparted to the jury is that drug addiction when coupled with financial distress gives a person a motive to commit a theft-related crime, which seems to me to be a permissible inference that does not rely upon character or character-related propensity. Drug addiction and financial distress show a need for money, and, therefore, a motive to steal. State v. Henness, 679 N.E.2d 686, 694 (Ohio), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 971 (1997); see United States v. Mitchell, 172 F.3d 1104, 1109 (9th Cir. 1999) (because drug addiction establishes likelihood of desperate need for money “and lack of self-control,” evidence that a person is poor and drug-addicted may be relevant to show motive to commit a crime). Reasoning that a person who is addicted to a drug and who lacks any legitimate source of funds is more likely to have a motive to steal money with which to purchase drugs than a person randomly chosen from the population “does not depend on the application of a character-based propensity inference.” Leonard, Character and Motive in Evidence Law, 34 LOY. L. REV. 439, 525 (2001).
Once this evidence is used to prove motive, I believe that, depending upon the circumstances of the case, the jury should be allowed to infer identity from it. In fact, motive is commonly used to prove identity, and evidence of prior bad acts is one way to prove motive. See id. at 440, 463.
In People v. Talaga, 194 N.W.2d 462, 463 (Mich. Ct. App. 1971), for instance, to prove that the defendant participated in the armed robbery, the prosecution sought to admit evidence that he was a heroin addict. The defendant appealed, arguing that evidence of his heroin addiction should have been excluded. Talaga, 194 N.W.2d at 462. The appellate court affirmed, holding that it tended to establish a motive for armed robbery and that the motive, in turn, tended to rebut the defendant’s claim that he was at home and knew nothing of the charge made against him. Id. at 463.
*125To the extent that the majority has ruled that evidence of a defendant’s drug addiction plus financial difficulties may never be used to prove motive to steal (and thereby be used to prove identity) unless the State has presented some threshold alternative evidence of identity, I do not favor such a categorical approach. Although I am sensitive to the majority’s concerns, I favor a more case-specific approach. I disagree with the majority’s assumption that the chain of reasoning that connects a defendant’s drug addiction and financial straits to his motive to steal and to his identity as the perpetrator always requires an inference as to the defendant’s “character-based propensity to behave in a particular way.” Leonard, supra at 442. The majority’s opinion could, in the future, lead to the exclusion of prior bad act evidence in the trials of all cases in which identity is an issue, which I believe would be a mistake. See Colb, “Whodunit” Versus “What was Done”: When to Admit Character Evidence in Criminal Cases, 79 N.C. L. Rev. 939 (2001).