State v. Beachum
| Decision Date | 11 August 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 5016,5016 |
| Citation | 1981 NMCA 89,96 N.M. 566,632 P.2d 1204 |
| Parties | STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ronald Lee BEACHUM, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Court of Appeals of New Mexico |
Ronald Lee Beachum appeals his conviction of criminal sexual contact of a minor in violation of § 30-9-13(A)(1), N.M.S.A. 1978, and aggravated burglary in violation of § 30-16-4(C), N.M.S.A. 1978. The dispositive issue in this case is whether the trial court abused its discretion when it admitted a seven-year-old confession by the defendant into evidence under N.M.R.Evid. 404(b), N.M.S.A. 1978. We hold that it did, and grant the defendant a new trial.
The following is a summary of events leading to the charges against the defendant. The twelve-year-old victim was sleeping on a couch in her darkened living room. She woke up during the night to find a man kissing her face; his hand was on her chest over her clothes. The girl told the man to leave. He got up, looked into the other rooms of the small house where the victim's parents and others were sleeping, and walked out through the kitchen.
The victim went out onto the front porch, where her brother was sleeping. She woke him up and told him someone had been in the house. About that time, a man walked around the side of the house. The brother asked the man if he had been in the house. The man said no, pulled out some money, and apparently tried to put a $100 bill into the victim's shirt. Then he walked away.
A few days later, the brother saw the defendant at a Taco Bell and thought it was the man he had seen outside the house. The police were summoned, and the defendant was arrested at the Taco Bell.
The defendant's defense was an alibi. The trial court admitted into evidence a seven-year-old statement signed by the defendant, in which he confessed to having committed three possible acts of rape. The statement was admitted under Rule 404(b), for the purposes of proving intent and identity. Our review is limited to a determination of whether the trial court abused its discretion by admitting the statement into evidence during the defendant's trial. State v. Schifani, 92 N.M. 127, 584 P.2d 174 (Ct.App.), cert. denied, 92 N.M. 180, 585 P.2d 324 (1978).
Under Rule 404(b), evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to show that the defendant had a propensity to commit those crimes. This evidence may be admissible for purposes other than propensity, "such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity or absence of mistake or accident." In order to admit evidence under Rule 404(b), the court must find that the evidence is relevant to a disputed issue other than the defendant's character, and it must determine that the prejudicial effect of the evidence does not outweigh its probative value, as set out by N.M.R.Evid. 403, N.M.S.A. 1978. U. S. v. Figueroa, 618 F.2d 934 (2d Cir. 1980).
The trial court found that the defendant's statement was admissible to prove intent, which is an element of both crimes with which the defendant was charged. However, the defendant did not put the element of intent in issue. The defense was that Beachum did not commit the acts at all, not that he committed them without the requisite state of mind. Some jurisdictions allow evidence under Rule 404(b) to prove intent whether or not it is in issue. 2 Weinstein's Evidence § 404(9) (1980). The rule in New Mexico and many other jurisdictions is that evidence is not admissible under Rule 404(b) to prove a material element of the crime charged unless that element is in issue. State v. Allen, 91 N.M. 759, 581 P.2d 22 (Ct.App.), cert. denied, 91 N.M. 751, 580 P.2d 972 (1978), quoting from State v. Mason, 79 N.M. 663, 448 P.2d 175 (Ct.App.), cert. denied, 79 N.M. 688, 448 P.2d 489 (1968); U. S. v. Figueroa; U. S. v. Powell, 587 F.2d 443 (9th Cir. 1978); U. S. v. Silva, 580 F.2d 144 (5th Cir. 1978). Because intent was not controverted and is not a consequential issue in the case, evidence directed to that issue is irrelevant and inadmissible. 2 Weinstein's Evidence § 404(12) (1980).
The trial court also admitted the statement for the purpose of proving identity. Identity was put into issue by means of the defendant's alibi claim. Assuming the evidence was relevant to prove identity, there must be a further determination that the probative value of the evidence outweighs its prejudicial effect. See Advisory Committee's Notes to Federal Rule 404(b). 2 Weinstein's Evidence § 404(18) (1980). There is no doubt that the admission of the statement was extremely prejudicial to the defendant. Its probative value must be evaluated "in view of the availability of other means of proof and other factors appropriate for making decisions of this kind under Rule 403." Advisory Committee's Notes to Federal Rule 404(b).
In this case, the treatment of the evidence under the identity exception overlaps its possible use under the plan or design exception. See 2 Weinstein's Evidence §§ 404(15) and (16) (1980). In this area of overlap, the evidence of other acts is admitted to prove identity if the modus operandi of those acts is sufficiently similar to the charged acts to indicate they were likely done by the same person. In order for evidence to be admissible for this purpose, the similarity required must rise above the level of characteristics common to many incidents of the crime; it must demonstrate a unique or distinct pattern easily attributable to one person. U. S. v. Powell. No such characteristics present themselves in this case.
The state claims that the following similarities between the crimes discussed in the statement and the crimes charged bring the statement within the identity exception:
(1) All the incidents occurred inside homes;
(2) All the homes were entered by stealth rather than by force or invitation;
(3) All the incidents occurred late at night or during the early morning hours;
(4) All the victims were asleep;
(5) No attempt was made to obscure the view of the victims or mask the perpetrator;
(6) No weapons were used;
(7) Nothing was taken from the homes, only sexual offenses were committed;
(8) The perpetrator made a determination of whether there were other persons in the home; and
(9) All the incidents occurred within a short distance of the defendant's own home.
It is not clear how the state arrived at the last two "common" characteristics, because there is no evidence in at least one of the incidents that the defendant determined who else was in the house, and there is no evidence that any of the earlier incidents occurred closer than a mile to the defendant's residence. This list of characteristics is not idiosyncratic or even unusual. U. S. v. O'Connor, 580 F.2d 38 (2d Cir. 1978); Davis v. State, 376 So.2d 1198 (Fla.App. 1979); Smith v. State, 56 Ala.App. 384, 321 So.2d 724 (1975)...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Marquez
...404(b) to prove a material element of the crime charged unless that element is in issue ." State v. Beachum , 1981-NMCA-089, ¶ 7, 96 N.M. 566, 632 P.2d 1204 (emphasis added). "[I]f a fact is wholly undisputed, the only additional probative value extrinsic-act evidence would have on that iss......
-
State v. Lymon
...value.’ " State v. Hamilton , 2000-NMCA-063, ¶ 14, 129 N.M. 321, 6 P.3d 1043 (quoting State v. Beachum , 1981-NMCA-089, ¶ 6, 96 N.M. 566, 632 P.2d 1204 ); State v. Lovett , 2012-NMSC-036, ¶ 32, 286 P.3d 265 ("If the evidence is probative of something other than propensity, then we balance t......
-
State v. Altgilbers
... ... See R. 11-403; State v. Beachum", 96 N.M. 566, 632 P.2d 1204 (Ct.App.1981). Absent an abuse of discretion, the district court's decision to admit such evidence will not be disturbed on appeal. State v. Garcia, 99 N.M. 771, 776, 664 P.2d 969, 974, cert. denied, 462 U.S. 1112, 103 S.Ct. 2464, 77 L.Ed.2d 1341 (1983) ... \xC2" ... ...
-
State v. Abel, 13498
...incidents of the crime; it must demonstrate a unique or distinct pattern easily attributable to one person." State v. Beachum, 96 N.M. 566, 632 P.2d 1204, 1206 (N.M.App.1981). To my mind the "similarities" between the two incidents in this case just do not rise to that level. In fact, in th......