Belcher v. State
2016 Alas. App. LEXIS 82
| Alaska Ct. App. | 2016Background
- On Nov. 23, 2012, Walmart loss-prevention officer observed Belcher leave the store with a TV and Blu-ray player after the store alarm sounded; surveillance video showed him select the items, return DVDs to a register, then exit.
- Officer Brown had no receipt from Belcher and recorded his identifying information; store records showed no sale of the TV or player during Belcher’s presence.
- Belcher told Brown the alarm tripped because of DVDs he forgot to pay for and said he would pawn items rather than return them if defective.
- The State charged Belcher with second-degree theft and sought to admit his year-old conviction for third-degree theft (possession of stolen merchandise) under Alaska Evidence Rule 404(b)(1).
- The superior court admitted the prior conviction limited to issues of identity, intent, common scheme/plan, and absence of mistake; the jury convicted Belcher.
- On appeal, the Court of Appeals held admission of the prior conviction was erroneous because it served only to show propensity, but the error was harmless given overwhelming evidence of guilt.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of prior theft under Alaska Evid. R. 404(b)(1) | Prior conviction is admissible to show identity, intent, common scheme/plan, or absence of mistake | Prior conviction is inadmissible because it only shows propensity to steal and is unfairly prejudicial | Error to admit: prior conviction had no legitimate relevance beyond character/propensity and thus violated Rule 404(b)(1) |
| Identity as a proper 404(b) purpose | Past theft helps identify defendant in surveillance footage | Defense did not meaningfully dispute identification; theory was payment, not misidentification | Admission for identity was erroneous; identity was not genuinely contested |
| Intent or absence of mistake as proper 404(b) purposes | Prior theft shows defendant’s capacity or intent to steal and rebuts alleged mistakes | Defense claimed he paid for items (actus reus contest), not inadvertence or mistake as to intent | Admission to prove intent or mistake improperly amounted to propensity evidence and was erroneous |
| Common scheme/plan as proper 404(b) purpose | Prior theft shows a pattern or distinctive method supporting a common scheme inference | Prior offense lacked unique, similar modus operandi; similarities limited to absence of receipt | Admission for scheme/plan was erroneous; no overarching scheme connecting the offenses |
Key Cases Cited
- Coleman v. State, 621 P.2d 869 (Alaska 1980) (404(b) evidence admissible only when the issue for which offered is genuinely disputed)
- Moor v. State, 709 P.2d 498 (Alaska App. 1985) (advance notice of 404(b) evidence and necessity of careful trial-court scrutiny)
- Smithart v. State, 946 P.2d 1264 (Alaska App. 1997) (evidence offered solely to show character/propensity is inadmissible under Rule 404(b))
- Bolden v. State, 720 P.2d 957 (Alaska App. 1986) (to show common scheme, prior acts must be part of an overall plan)
- Adkinson v. State, 611 P.2d 528 (Alaska 1980) (prior acts admissible to rebut a claim of inadvertence or mistake about conduct)
- Lewis v. State, 312 P.3d 856 (Alaska App. 2013) (prior escape conviction admissible to rebut defense of mistake about permission to leave)
- Khan v. State, 204 P.3d 1036 (Alaska App. 2009) (prior fraudulent acts admissible to rebut claim of mistake or inadvertence)
- Love v. State, 457 P.2d 622 (Alaska 1969) (standard for reversal on nonconstitutional evidentiary error: appellant must show the error appreciably affected the verdict)