holding, on trial for capital murder, that evidence indicating that the accused had previously been convicted of other violent crimes was not admissible to show motive “because there was no showing that the acts underlying the prior convictions had a logical tendency to lead-to any inference that [the accused], because he committed those pri- or acts, ... was motivated to commit the now-charged crime”
How later courts described this case
- holding, on trial for capital murder, that evidence indicating that the accused had previously been convicted of other violent crimes was not admissible to show motive “because there was no showing that the acts underlying the prior convictions had a logical tendency to lead-to any inference that [the accused], because he committed those pri- or acts, ... was motivated to commit the now-charged crime”
- holding that .Moore’s prior convictions were not admissible to show motive “because’ there, was no showing that the acts underlying the prior convictions had a logical tendency to lead to an inference that Moore, because he committed these prior acts, ... was motivated, to commit the now-charged crime.”
- holding that, in prosecution for capital murder, admission of evidence of defendant’s prior convictions for assault and murder was reversible error
- "[T]he State should not have been allowed to supply Moore's intent to kill in the present case, or an apparent motive for the murder, by showing that he had assaulted and killed other persons on unrelated occasions under what appear to be wholly unrelated circumstances."
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
I agree with the rationale of Holmes and Brown that the time standard set forth in Rule 609(b), Ala. R. Evid., should be tolled by the appellant's imprisonment on his 1977 murder conviction and that therefore his two earlier convictions should not be considered stale. However, I also recognize that the rules and the caselaw in Alabama do not support such a finding at this time. Accordingly, I concur specially to urge that Rule 609(b), Ala.R.Evid., be revised and/or interpreted to provide for such a tolling.