Court Opinion

ID: 9788807
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 01:18:59.477417+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:37:16.782130
License: Public Domain

Judge ROY
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
While I concur with the balance of the opinion, I respectfully dissent from the majority's holding that the roommate's testimony that defendant had previously given him illegal drugs was admissible to prove that defendant later knowingly possessed the drugs in question here.
The fact that a defendant has knowingly possessed illegal drugs in the past may be intuitively relevant to whether he or she knowingly possessed the illegal drugs charged, but such a fact has no logical relevance independent of the prohibited inference that the defendant has and was acting *817in conformity with a bad character. See People v. Spoto, 795 P.2d 1314 (Colo.1990). Put another way, that a person had knowledge in one instance is of very marginal relevance in determining whether the person has knowledge in a subsequent instance. People v. Duncan, 38 P.3d 1180, 1184 (Colo.App.2001)(Roy, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). Further, even if there were some modicum of logical relevance independent of the prohibited inference, its probative value would be vastly outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to the defendant.
Because whether defendant acted "knowingly" was the primary issue at trial, I cannot conclude the error here in admitting the roommate's testimony was harmless. Therefore, I would reverse and remand for a new trial.