Wooten v. United States, 5926.
| Decision Date | 29 December 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 5926.,5926. |
| Citation | 285 A.2d 308 |
| Parties | Robert D. WOOTEN, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES, Appellee. |
| Court | D.C. Court of Appeals |
O. B. Parker, Washington, D. C., appointed by this court, for appellant.
Thomas A. Flannery, U. S. Atty., with whom John A. Terry, Charles F. Flynn and Paul L. Friedman, Asst. U. S. Attys., were on the brief, for appellee.
Before KELLY, KERN and NEBEKER, Associate Judges.
This is an appeal from judgments of conviction after a trial by jury of assault with a dangerous weapon,1 a pistol, and carrying a concealed weapon,2 a pistol, for which appellant was sentenced to two to six years imprisonment on each charge to be served concurrently.
Appellant's main contention is that the trial judge erred in admitting evidence, over appellant's objection, that he had raped the complaining witness.3 As the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit stated in Drew v. United States, 118 U.S.App.D.C. 11, 15, 331 F.2d 85, 89 (1964),
[I]t is a principle of long standing in our law that evidence of one crime is inadmissible to prove disposition to commit crime, from which the jury may infer that the defendant committed the crime charged. . . . [Footnote omitted.]
See also United States v. Bobbitt, 146 U.S. App.D.C. ___, at ___, 450 F.2d 685 at 688 (decided Sept. 24, 1971); United States v. Gay, 133 U.S.App.D.C. 337, 339, 410 F.2d 1036, 1038 (1969), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 867, 91 S.Ct. 109, 27 L.Ed.2d 107; reh. denied, 400 U.S. 953, 91 S.Ct. 249, 27 L.Ed.2d 261 (1970).4 Two well-established exceptions to the above general rule allow the introduction of evidence of an offense not charged where such evidence is relevant in establishing the motive or intent to commit the offense charged, United States v. Bobbitt, supra; United States v. Gay, supra; Drew v. United States, supra, or in explaining the circumstances of the offense charged, Fairbanks v. United States, 96 U.S.App.D.C. 345, 347, 226 F.2d 251, 253 (1955); Bracey v. United States, 79 U.S.App.D.C. 23, 26, 142 F.2d 85, 88, cert. denied, 322 U.S. 762, 64 S.Ct. 1274, 88 L.Ed. 1589 (1944); McDonald v. United States, D.C.Mun.App., 183 A.2d 396 (1962). Relevant evidence of an uncharged offense is admissible under these circumstances if its prejudicial effect is outweighed by its probative value, United States v. Gay, supra, and the trial judge's decision will be reversed on appeal only for abuse of discretion. Harper v. United States, 99 U.S.App.D.C. 324, 325, 239 F.2d 945, 946 (1956), Bracey v. United States, supra.
In the instant case, we find that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion. The testimony of the complaining witness concerning the alleged rape was highly probative of appellant's intent and motive in pointing the gun at her and in explaining the circumstances surrounding appellant's use of the weapon for purposes of frightening her into submission, cf., Ingram v. United States, D.C.Mun.App., 110 A.2d 693 (1955). The trial judge's immediate cautionary instruction to the jury concerning the limited purpose for which the evidence was introduced and a similar instruction contained in the final charge to the jury adequately protected appellant's interests.
Affirmed.
1.. >D.C. Code 1967, § 22-502.
3. Appellant also argues that the trial court erred in instructing the jury that the Government had no...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
JOHNSON v. U.S.
...necessary to "complete the story"); see Campbell v. United States, 450 A.2d 428, 430 n. 4 (D.C. 1982) (same); Wooten v. United States, 285 A.2d 308, 309-10 (D.C. 1971) (evidence of uncharged offense is admissible to explain circumstances of charged offense). In those instances, we are deali......
-
Davis v. United States
...total incident she was recounting, and in order to explain the circumstance of the offense actually charged. See Wooten v. United States, D.C.App., 285 A.2d 308, 309-10 (1971). There were no questions that directly elicited this information, nor was the incident described in inflammatory te......
-
Godfrey v. United States
...trial court did not abuse its discretion, see Watcher v. United States, D.C.App. 408 A.2d 67, 75 (1979); Wooten v. United States, D.C. App., 285 A.2d 308, 309 (1971) (per curiam), in deciding that the probative value of this evidence outweighed the prejudicial effect of its admission. See G......
-
Boone v. US
...520 U.S. 1148, 117 S.Ct. 1323, 137 L.Ed.2d 484 (1997);6 Parker v. United States, 586 A.2d 720, 724 (D.C.1991); Wooten v. United States, 285 A.2d 308, 309 (D.C.1971). In this case we are satisfied that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the jury to hear the challenged T......