Court Opinion

ID: 9557781
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 16:57:28.17941+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:06:50.026988
License: Public Domain

HENDLEY, Judge (specially concurring). I concur in the opinion of Judge Wood but disagree with both Judge Wood and Judge Hernandez in their discussion of Rule 404(b). Rule 404(b) refers to “the character of a person.” It is not limited to the accused. It would be in that situation where the admissibility of evidence would be challenged as being prejudicial. The situation would not necessarily arise in the case of a witness. A witness would be otherwise protected. There is no question that extrinsic evidence is admissible to show the motive of a defendant. State v. Hogervorst, 90 N.M. 580, 566 P.2d 828 (Ct.App.1977). The Rules of Evidence do not contain any other section dealing with the motive of a witness to testify.’ Rule 404(b) is explicit when it refers to “a person.” To state that Rule 404(b) does not seem to explicitly grant such permission is an avoidance of the plain, unambiguous reading of the rule. To imply that we must rely on other authority outside the rules does not give recognition to the rule. Such is not or was not the philosophy in the adoption of the Rules of Evidence. For the foregoing reasons, I must disagree with the reasoning of both Judge Wood and Judge Hernandez. There can be no other meaning of “a person.” “[A] person” includes both the accused and a witness.