holding that, in prosecution for possession of cocaine, evidence of defendant’s two prior drug convictions was not admissible and admission was reversible error
How later courts described this case
- holding that, in prosecution for possession of cocaine, evidence of defendant’s two prior drug convictions was not admissible and admission was reversible error
- concluding that the jury could not have properly considered *1086 the defendant’s prior convictions to show knowledge and intent because neither was at issue
- concluding that the jury could not have properly considered the defendant’s pri- or convictions to show knowledge and intent because neither was at issue
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
I concur with the majority's conclusion that the trial court improperly admitted evidence about the appellant's prior drug convictions, but I do not agree with all of the reasoning and analysis in reaching that conclusion. For example, the opinion incorrectly implies that it is necessary for the State to allege the purpose for which it intends to offer Rule 404(b), Ala. R. Evid., evidence when it gives notice of its intent to introduce such evidence at trial, and it makes unnecessary remarks about the trial court's rulings on the defense's attempts to introduce evidence about a pattern and practice of harassment by the law enforcement officers who were involved in this case. Nevertheless, because knowledge was not an issue in this case, I agree that the trial court improperly admitted evidence about the appellant's prior drug convictions to prove knowledge in this case. Therefore, I respectfully concur in the result.