50 A.3d 476
D.C.2012Background
- Morton is charged with burglary, robbery, kidnapping, and felony murder in the Superior Court.
- Government seeks to admit evidence of Morton’s long-term heroin addiction, drug use on the day of the offenses, and Morton’s admission of prior burglaries to support his drug habit.
- Trial court excluded prior-burglary evidence as propensity evidence under Drew and drug-addiction evidence as propensity evidence and prejudicial.
- Government argues Toliver/Johnson exceptions and Drew exception to admit the evidence for motive and identity.
- Court holds the prior-burglary evidence should be excluded unless defense opens the door; drug-addiction evidence may be admissible as corroborative identity evidence and must be remanded for a renewed balancing of probative value against prejudicial effect; remand also for possible limiting instructions and consideration of limited expert testimony.
- Ultimately, the court affirms the exclusion of the prior-burglaries and remands for weighing the drug-addiction evidence anew in light of its corroborative value with the other evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of admissions of prior burglaries to support drug habit | Morton’s admissions are admissible under non-propensity purpose. | Admissions are propensity evidence and prejudicial. | Excluded as propensity evidence; no meaningful distinction from propensity. |
| Admissibility of longstanding heroin addiction and day-of-offense use | Addiction evidence is necessary to contextualize the crime. | Evidence is largely propensity-based and prejudicial. | Remanded to reweigh probative value against prejudice; may be admissible as corroboration. |
| Use of drug-addiction evidence as evidence of identity/motive | Addiction corroborates identity and supports motive. | Risk of impermissible propensity inference. | Part of remand; court to re-evaluate corroborative value in context with other evidence. |
| admissibility of expert testimony on drug addiction | Narcotics expert should explain addiction-related behavior. | Expert testimony on addiction must be tightly limited. | Expert testimony restricted; on remand, some aspects may be admissible if balanced in light of corroboration value. |
| Standard and scope of appellate review of evidentiary rulings | Trial court abused discretion by mis weighing probative value. | Trial court’s discretion should prevail. | Remand for renewed balancing; retain standard of abuse of discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Toliver v. United States, 468 A.2d 958 (D.C.1983) (admissibility of other-crimes evidence in context of non-propensity purposes)
- Johnson v. United States, 683 A.2d 1087 (D.C.1996) (balancing probative value against prejudice; government need as factor)
- Drew v. United States, 331 F.2d 85 (D.C.Cir.1964) (propensity prohibition; exceptions for motive/identity)
- Harrison v. United States, 30 A.3d 169 (D.C.2011) (principle that prior bad acts evidence cannot show disposition to commit crimes)
- Robinson v. United States, 623 A.2d 1234 (D.C.1993) (limits on motive evidence when used to establish identity)