explaining that evidence of prior criminal acts that the defendant makes relevant to prove the crimes with which he is charged is admissible; however, “such evidence must be accompanied by a cautionary instruction which fully and carefully explains to the jury the limited purpose for which that evidence has been admitted”
How later courts described this case
- explaining that evidence of prior criminal acts that the defendant makes relevant to prove the crimes with which he is charged is admissible; however, “such evidence must be accompanied by a cautionary instruction which fully and carefully explains to the jury the limited purpose for which that evidence has been admitted”
- stating special circumstance exists to admit evidence of defendant’s pri- or violent acts, where defendant made statement about prior acts to threaten and intimidate another, and force or threat of force is element of crime for which defendant is being prosecuted
- holding that "such evidence must be accompanied by a cautionary instruction which fully and carefully explains to the jury the limited purpose for which that evidence has been admitted"
- concluding that the trial court’s giving of a detailed cautionary instruction was sufficient to overcome prejudicial effect of the introduction of prior bad acts evidence
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
McDERMOTT, Justice,
concurring.
I join the majority in holding that a threat, fortified with an example from the actor’s criminal past, as proof of a present intention to gain a criminal purpose, is as admissible as a gun, knife, bomb or any other threat. If he chooses to use his criminal past as a token of his sincerity, he is no more prejudiced than was his victim.
A “threat” can be as palpable as a steel blade, the muzzle of a gun, or a ticking bomb. If the tool one uses to accomplish a criminal purpose prejudices him, so much the worse for him.
FLAHERTY and PAPADAKOS, JJ., join in this concurring opinion.