Smith v. State
| Decision Date | 03 April 1998 |
| Docket Number | No. A98A0436.,A98A0436. |
| Citation | 501 S.E.2d 523,232 Ga. App. 290 |
| Parties | SMITH v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
James D. Michael, Decatur, for appellant.
J. Tom Morgan, District Attorney, Priscilla E.N. Carroll, Kevin N. Levitas, Maria Murcier-Ashley, Assistant District Attorneys, for appellee.
John Andrew Smith appeals his conviction for aggravated assault (OCGA § 16-5-21) arising out of his pouring rubbing alcohol on his girl friend and setting her afire. He claims the court erred in (a) admitting evidence he previously attacked his estranged wife with a machete and (b) sua sponte charging the jury on voluntary intoxication.
1. 1 An age-old question is whether and under what circumstances evidence of prior bad acts advances this object. Does such evidence actually materially tend to show the defendant committed the crime in question, or does it unfairly prejudice the jury against the defendant because of his character?
The pertinent statute provides that "[t]he general character of the parties and especially their conduct in other transactions are irrelevant matter unless the nature of the action involves such character and renders necessary or proper the investigation of such conduct."2 The primary aim of this rule is to avoid the forbidden inference of propensity. Just because a defendant has committed wrongful acts in the past is not alone legal grounds to believe he has done so on the occasion under scrutiny. 3
The basis for this rule is a policy decision, for "character evidence is logically relevant: [c]haracter is circumstantial evidence of conduct and state of mind. A person is more likely to act in accord with his character than contrary to it. Nonetheless, because the probative value of such evidence is outweighed by the danger of prejudice, such evidence is generally legally irrelevant.... However, if the evidence is substantially relevant for some other purpose than to show a probability that the defendant committed the crime on trial because he is a man of criminal character, it is admissible even if it incidentally puts the defendant's character in issue.
4
As an additional safeguard against the improper introduction of this inflammatory evidence, Williams v. State5 and Uniform Superior Court Rule 31.3 require that a hearing be held in which the State must demonstrate, and the court must find (by a preponderance of the evidence6), as to each independent act the State seeks to introduce (a) the evidence will be introduced for an appropriate purpose and not to raise an improper inference as to the accused's character, (b) the accused committed the independent act, and (c) there is a sufficient connection or similarity between the independent act and the crime charged so that proof of the former tends to prove the latter.
Even if all of these criteria are met, "the trial court retains the sound legal discretion to exclude relevant similar crimes evidence on the ground that its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice."7 As the New Jersey Supreme Court observed, the "inflammatory characteristic of other-crime evidence mandates a careful and pragmatic evaluation by trial courts, based on the specific context in which the evidence is offered, to determine whether the probative worth of the evidence outweighs its potential for undue prejudice."8 This final guardian of fairness allows the court, on reflection, to exclude the evidence as simply too prejudicial in the court's judgment when compared to its probative value. But an express finding that the scales weigh in favor of admission is not required.9
In exercising this discretion, the court should consider whether "the State's need for the similar transaction evidence outweigh[s] the prejudice inherent to the defendant."10 This consideration consists of at least two questions. First, is the issue for which the State is introducing the evidence a genuinely disputed issue? For example, if identity is the State's announced purpose but is not an issue contested by defendant, then the probative value of the similar transaction evidence is acutely if not fatally diminished. 11
Second, does the State need this evidence to prove the issue, or can the fact be proved otherwise? "An important factor in weighing the probative value of other-crime evidence is whether other, less-inflammatory evidence can prove the same fact in issue."12 Citing analogous federal law, the United States Supreme Court held that "[t]he determination must be made whether the danger of undue prejudice outweighs the probative value of the evidence in view of the availability of other means of proof...."13 To illustrate, where intent may be easily inferred from the commission of the act itself, the probative value of similar transaction evidence proffered to prove intent will generally be outweighed by its prejudicial effect.14
On occasion, the erroneous admission of similar transaction evidence is considered harmless because of the overwhelming weight of the evidence.15 In such cases, the elements of the crime were proven through means other than the similar transactions, eliminating the necessity for such evidence. Requiring the State to rely on less inflammatory evidence enhances adherence to the general rule against admitting prior bad acts and stems a tide of exceptions from drowning the rule.
Applying these principles to this case, the court did not err in admitting the similar transaction evidence. The facts underlying the charged crime are that for six to eight months Smith engaged in a romantic relationship with Phalesha Turner, who would spend several nights a week with him at his residence. One night as she lay sleeping next to him Smith woke her up and began arguing. When she ignored him, he poured rubbing alcohol over her and demanded she leave his residence. She declined, and he poured more alcohol on her and ignited it with a cigarette lighter, resulting in severe burns to her right hand and arm and to the right side of her torso. His defense was that she was massaging him with alcohol when he went to light his cigarette and accidentally ignited her hand.
The prior transaction occurred three years earlier when, without warning, he arrived at his estranged wife's home with a machete and chopped down the front door. He slammed her up against the wall and cut her with the machete. His version was that she and others present attacked him.
At the Rule 31.3 hearing, the State announced four purposes for the evidence: to show absence of accident, course of conduct, motive, and bent of mind. The State argued the evidence demonstrated that in unprovoked domestic situations Smith reacted violently and with weapons when upset with his sexual partner. The court found that there was no question Smith committed the independent act and that the act was sufficiently similar to show his course of conduct or bent of mind to react violently and without provocation to those with whom he was intimate. Because the evidence focused on his state of mind, it would tend to disprove accident. The court further found the probative value of the evidence outweighed its prejudice to Smith. During trial, the court heard the estranged wife's testimony outside the presence of the jury and reaffirmed its finding of similarity. The court instructed the jury at the time of the testimony and again in the final charge about the limited purposes of the testimony.
The court's findings are measured by the clearly erroneous standard.16 Because they both relate to intent, bent of mind and course of conduct, they are permissible purposes in assault cases,17 particularly to assess defendant's claim of accident.18
Smith does not challenge the fact he committed the independent act. Instead, he argues the independent act against his estranged wife was not sufficiently similar. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wright v. State
...susceptible of dispute, the less the probative value of the evidence.") (citation and punctuation omitted); Smith v. State , 232 Ga. App. 290, 293 (1), 501 S.E.2d 523 (1998) ("[W]here intent may be easily inferred from the commission of the act itself, the probative value of similar transac......
-
Robertson v. State
...purpose of showing the defendant's motive and intent at the time of the shooting he claims was accidental.5 See Smith v. State, 232 Ga.App. 290, 501 S.E.2d 523 (1998) (evidence defendant previously attacked estranged wife admissible to show intent and disprove defense of accident); State v.......
-
McMullen v. State
...of such conduct.”). 23.Williams v. State, 261 Ga. 640, 641(2)(a), 409 S.E.2d 649 (1991); seeOCGA § 24–2–2; Smith v. State, 232 Ga.App. 290, 291(1), 501 S.E.2d 523 (1998). 24.Williams, 261 Ga. at 641(2)(a), 409 S.E.2d 649 (punctuation omitted); seeOCGA § 24–2–2. 25.Williams, 261 Ga. at 641(2......
-
Robertson v. State
...against the same victims were relevant to show malice, premeditation and defendant's state of mind). 9. See Smith v. State, 232 Ga.App. 290, 501 S.E.2d 523, 529 (1998) (where defendant claimed that he accidentally lit his girlfriend on fire while she slept, evidence admissible that defendan......
-
Evidence - Marc T. Treadwell
...App. 301, 304, 496 S.E.2d 312, 314 (1998)). 29. Id. at 120, 553 S.E.2d at 676. 30. Id., 553 S.E.2d at 676-77 (quoting Smith v. State, 232 Ga. App. 290, 291, 501 S.E.2d 523, 525 (1998)). 31. Id. at 121, 553 S.E.2d at 677. 32. Id., 553 S.E.2d at 677-78. 33. 251 Ga. App. 221, 553 S.E.2d 335 (2......
-
Georgia's New Evidence Code - an Overview
...be allowable into relevant specific instances of conduct. GA. Code Ann.§ 24-4-405(c) (effective Jan. 1, 2013). 176. See Smith v. State, 501 S.E.2d 523, 525 (Ga. Ct. App. 1998) ("The primary aim of [the character] rule is to avoid the forbidden inference of propensity. Just because a defenda......