Court Opinion

ID: 9564035
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 18:53:29.589489+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:11.637784
License: Public Domain

Justice MITCHELL
concurring in the result.
The majority has concluded that evidence tending to show that the defendant Harrison committed another felonious break-in with the State’s witness, in addition to that charged in this case, was inadmissible but not prejudicial. As a result, the majority has reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals which awarded the defendant a new trial. I concur only in the result reached, because I believe the evidence of the other break-in committed by the defendant Harrison with the State’s witness was admissible in this case.
During cross-examination of the State’s witness Bowens, defense counsel inquired into all crimes Bowens had ever committed and attempted to show both his long criminal record and the fact that he had made deals with the State. By so doing, the defense counsel opened the door to permit the State to inquire into the facts of all of those crimes, including the identity of anyone who participated with the State’s witness in committing them. State v. Pruitt, 301 N.C. 683, 686-87, 273 S.E. 2d 264, 267 (1980). The defendant having opened the door on cross-examination, the State came in to show that the defendant Harrison had participated in at least one other break-in inquired about by the defendant during cross-examination. This was proper, and the evidence resulting was admissible. Id.
Evidence of the other break-in by Harrison and the State’s witness was admissible for another and more important reason. Evidence of other crimes committed by a defendant is clearly admissible for “purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity or absence of mistake, entrapment or accident.” N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 404(b) (Supp. 1985) (emphasis added). All of the evidence in the present case tended to show that the defendants did not commit the actual breaking or entering of the store, but stood by while the State’s witness broke into and entered the store. As a result, the State’s case against the defendants was based entirely upon circumstantial evidence of their common plan and concerted action with the State’s witness. Therefore, the majority seems to me to be entirely and obviously incorrect in stating that: “Guilty knowledge or *531shared intent of the defendants was not a ‘material fact in issue.’ ” No fact in issue was more material in this case than the knowledge or shared intent of the defendants. It was absolutely vital to the State’s case that it produce evidence of the defendants’ motive, intent, plan or knowledge that the State’s witness Luke Bowens would break into the store.
This Court has specifically held in prior cases that evidence just such as that held inadmissible here by the majority is competent and admissible to show that a defendant knew the unlawful purpose of others who participated with him in the crime for which he stands charged. E.g., State v. Ferrell, 205 N.C. 640, 172 S.E. 186 (1934). Evidence of the other break-in by the defendant Harrison with the State’s witness — whether it was committed before or after the crimes charged in this case — was at least some substantial circumstantial evidence of Harrison’s motive and intent as well as of the existence of a common plan and concerted action.
Finally, I do not understand the need for the first footnote to the opinion of the majority wherein the majority quotes State v. Morgan, 315 N.C. 626, 640, 340 S.E. 2d 84, 93 (1986) for the obvious proposition that before admitting extrinsic conduct evidence under Rules 404(b) or 608(b) of our Rules of Evidence, the trial court must “engage in a balancing, under Rule 403 of the probative value of the evidence against its prejudicial effects.” The balancing required by Rule 403 and by the quoted language in Morgan does not apply until a court is considering whether to exclude evidence it has determined to be otherwise admissible because the unfair prejudice of the otherwise admissible evidence outweighs its probative value. Clearly, the balancing requirement of Rule 403 is not pertinent to the opinion of the majority which concludes that evidence of Harrison’s participation in another break-in was not admissible for any purpose within Rule 404(b).
As I have previously indicated, I would hold the evidence in question admissible under the specific exceptions of Rule 404(b). Since the evidence went directly to the most material fact in issue in this case, I would also find that its probative value far exceeded any danger of unfair prejudice resulting from its admission.
*532For the foregoing reasons, I concur only in the result reached by the majority.
Justices MEYER and Martin join in this concurring opinion.