explaining that the improper introduction of other-crimes evidence was harmless because any prejudicial effect “was overshadowed by the substantial evidence of defendant’s guilt—most notably, his own uncontested statement” (emphasis added)
How later courts described this case
- explaining that the improper introduction of other-crimes evidence was harmless because any prejudicial effect “was overshadowed by the substantial evidence of defendant’s guilt—most notably, his own uncontested statement” (emphasis added)
- recognizing that the improper admission of other crimes evidence is subject to harmless error review and that any such error is harmless where the defendant suffers no prejudice is not denied a fair trial
- finding that prejudicial effect from isolated reference to defendant’s criminal activity in another state was overshadowed by the substantial evidence of defendant’s guilt
- finding evidence of defendant’s guilt was “substantial enough that the jury would have returned a verdict of guilty” even without the State’s improper argument
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
JUSTICE BILANDIC joins in this special concurrence.