Court Opinion

ID: 9698069
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 19:40:51.586455+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:38.033475
License: Public Domain

SCHWELB, Associate Judge,
concurring in part and concurring in the judgment:
In my opinion, proof that Bowman told a prospective witness that he was going to bring Pampers to his wife was relevant to his later state of mind when he forced his way into the home. See, e.g., E. CleaRY, McCormick on Evidence § 185, at 542 (3d ed. 1984), quoted in Street v. United States, 602 A.2d 141, 143 (D.C.1992) (evidence is relevant if it could reasonably show that a fact is slightly more probable than it would be without the evidence). The proffered testimony should therefore have been admitted. I think we can say with fair assurance on the basis of the record as a whole, however, that the exclusion of the testimony did not prejudice Bowman. An impartial jury would necessarily have concluded that any laudable donative intent on Bowman’s part had been dissipated by the time he kicked in the window and “rolled into the house” in an obviously belligerent frame of mind. Accordingly, any error was harmless.
In all other respects, I join in the opinion of the court.