515 S.E.2d 764 | S.C. Ct. App. | 1999
Lead Opinion
Ivadella Brooks appeals from her conviction for forgery. We affirm.
I.
On November 11, 1996, Ivadella Brooks presented a check dated the same day for $70 to a cashier at a Winn Dixie grocery store to pay for some paper items and receive some cash. The cashier asked the head cashier, Hattie Mae Glover, for a check approval. The account on the check belonged to Arthur Moss, Sr. or Vernelle M. Thomas. In addition, the check was written to the “order of Winn Dixie ... for housekeeping.” Glover recognized the names of Moss and Thomas as relatives of hers and knew both Moss and Thomas to be dead at the time — Moss for eight years and Thomas for several months. Glover asked Brooks a few questions, including how Brooks got the check and who signed it. Brooks responded that she did some work for Moss and that he had signed the check. At some point, Brooks endorsed the check. She was eventually arrested.
At trial, Blanche Thomas denied borrowing money from Brooks or her mother, denied ever having seen the check, and noted that she often gave clothes to Brooks for Brooks’s daughters. Further, the State introduced evidence that the Moss account was closed in 1994 and that Brooks committed a prior forgery by writing a check on a closed account on Sept. 25, 1995. The State claimed the prior forgery evidence was admissible as an exception to Rule 404(b), SCRE to show absence of mistake or accident and intent in the current forgery. Brooks objected, arguing the evidence was not relevant and, even if relevant, was more prejudicial than probative. The trial court overruled the objection and held the evidence was proper under State v. Lyle, 125 S.C. 406, 118 S.E. 803 (1923)
II.
Brooks contends the trial court erred in admitting the evidence of the prior forgery. We agree.
Evidence of. other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible to show motive, identity, the existence of a common scheme or plan, the absence of mistake or accident, or intent.
Rule 404(b), SCRE.
Evidence of other crimes must be put to a rather severe test before admission. The acid test of admissibility is the logical relevancy of the other crimes. The trial judge must clearly perceive the connection between the other crimes and the crime charged. Further, other crimes which are*143 not the subject of the conviction must be proven by clear and convincing evidence.
State v. Cutro, 332 S.C. 100, 103, 504 S.E.2d 324, 325 (1998) (citation omitted).
[I]n analyzing whether evidence is relevant under Rule 404(b), it “must tend to prove or disprove an issue actually in dispute, without relying upon forbidden inferences of predisposition, character, or propensity. In other words, no link in the chain of inferences justifying relevance can be derived from the prior conduct’s tendency to show character or disposition.”
State v. Nelson, 331 S.C. 1, 13, 501 S.E.2d 716, 722 (1998) (quoting State v. Melcher, 140 N.H. 823, 678 A.2d 146, 149 (1996));
The State has not claimed that the two instances constitute a common scheme or plan to forge checks on closed accounts. Instead, it argues that the prior conviction is admissible to show intent or absence of mistake or accident. We disagree.
Admitting the prior forgery in the current case would require an impermissible inference of fact based on character. For the prior forgery to be relevant to any factual issue in the forgery at bar would require us to assume that, because Brooks previously pleaded guilty to an unrelated forgery of a
However, we must affirm the trial court’s decision if its error can be considered harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. See Nelson, 331 S.C. at 16 n. 18, 501 S.E.2d at 725 n. 18. When the other evidence of guilt is overwhelming, any error in the admission of a prior bad act is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. See State v. Garner, 304 S.C. 220, 222, 403 S.E.2d 631, 632 (1991) (finding error in admission of prior bad act evidence harmless due to overwhelming evidence of appellant’s guilt). This is just such a case. Here, the State presented evidence that, when attempting to pass the check, Brooks claimed she had received the check from Mr. Moss for work
For the above reasons, Brooks’s conviction is
AFFIRMED.
. Rule 404(b) codifies the rule in Lyle. See State v. Gagum, 328 S.C. 560, 563 n. 2, 492 S.E.2d 822, 823 n. 2 (Ct.App.1997).
. In Nelson, the defendant was accused of four counts of criminal sexual conduct with a minor and four counts of lewd act on a minor due to his actions in connection with a three year old child. 331 S.C. at 3, 501 S.E.2d at 717. There, the State was attempting to introduce evidence otherwise unrelated to the crime which tended to show that the defendant was a pedophile. Id. at 4-5, 501 S.E.2d at 717-18. The Supreme Court reversed the conviction on the grounds that admitting the evidence violated the rule in Lyle. Id. at 16, 501 S.E.2d at 724.
. In Nelson, 331 S.C. at 12, 501 S.E.2d. at 722, the defendant simply denied any sexual contact at all, "making it highly questionable whether the element of intent was a material issue in the case.” Nevertheless, the opinion in Nelson concentrates more on the forbidden inference of conduct from character than it does on whether intent was at issue. See 331 S.C. at 6-13, 501 S.E.2d at 718-22. Although knowledge and intent were contested in the case at bar, the logical relevancy of the prior forgery depended on an impermissible inference of criminal conduct from bad character. Thus, in this case, that intent and knowledge were contested does not allow for admission of the prior forgery evidence under Rule 404 and Lyle.
. Brooks claims admitting photographs of her holding a forged check in the prior forgery was improper as needless detail. In light of the other overwhelming evidence against her, this evidence was also harmless.
Concurrence Opinion
concurring:
I agree with the result reached by the majority and would likewise affirm. I would hold, however, the trial court properly admitted the evidence of the prior forgery. Rule 404(b), SCRE.
Intent is an element of forgery. See S.C.Code Ann. § 16-13-10 (Supp.1997); State v. Wescott, 316 S.C. 473, 477, 450 S.E.2d 598, 601 (Ct.App.1994) (“The three important factors requisite to constitute forgery by uttering or publishing a forged instrument are: (1) it must be uttered or published as true or genuine; (2) it must be known by the party uttering or publishing it that it is false, forged, or counterfeited; and (3) there must be intent to prejudice, damage, or defraud another person.”). Although “[ejvidence of other crimes, wrongs,' or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith,” evidence of that
Evidence of Ivadella Brooks’s previous forgery conviction for cashing a check on a closed account was logically relevant to her criminal intent and to the lack of mistake or accident regarding the offense for which she was then being tried. That Brooks’s act in presenting the check in question was prompted by criminal intent rather than by mistake or accident was the issue at trial. Given the importance of the evidence of intent and the absence of mistake or accident, the prejudice Brooks sustained as a result of the trial court’s admitting the challenged evidence does not substantially outweigh its probative value.
What the majority appears to have done here is to read the “intent” and “absence of mistake or accident” exceptions out of Rule 404(b), SCRE.
Concurrence in Part
(concurring in part and dissenting in part):
I concur in Chief Judge Howell’s conclusion that the admission of Brooks’s prior forgery conviction constituted error. However, I respectfully disagree that the improper admission of this evidence was harmless.
The determination of whether an error is harmless depends on the particular circumstances of the case. State v. Reeves, 301 S.C. 191, 193, 391 S.E.2d 241, 243 (1990). “No definite rule of law governs this finding; rather the materiality and prejudicial character of the error must be determined from its relationship to the entire case.” Id. at 193-94, 391 S.E.2d at 243.
‘Whether the improper introduction of [prior bad act] evidence is harmless requires us to look at the other evidence admitted at trial to determine whether the defendant’s ‘guilt is conclusively proven by competent evidence, such that no other rational conclusion could be reached.’ ” State v. Berry, 332 S.C. 214, 220, 503 S.E.2d 770, 773 (Ct.App.1998) (quoting State v. Parker, 315 S.C. 230, 234, 433 S.E.2d 831, 833 (1993)); see State v. Parker, 315 S.C. 230, 433 S.E.2d 831 (1993) (admission of unrelated prior bad act evidence was not reversible error
Under the facts of this case, I cannot find the error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Although Brooks’s inconsistent statements concerning the check may have given rise to an inference of guilt,
Because Brooks’s conviction is based on circumstantial evidence, and the testimony of the State’s witnesses and Brooks’s witnesses is conflicting, I cannot conclude the evidence of guilt was overwhelming. Moreover, I cannot find that reference to Brooks’s prior forgery did not affect the result of the trial. In
For these reasons, I do not believe the error in admitting evidence of Brooks’s prior forgery can be considered harmless. See State v. Jenkins, 322 S.C. 414, 472 S.E.2d 251 (1996) (improper admission of evidence of prior burglaries in defendant’s trial for grand larceny and first-degree burglary was not harmless error where testimony was clearly prejudicial and the other evidence of defendant’s guilt was not overwhelming); Berry, 332 S.C. at 221-22, 503 S.E.2d at 774 (improper admission of prior bad act evidence was not harmless error where evidence of guilt was not overwhelming and credibility was crucial to the defense case); see also Reeves, 301 S.C. at 194, 391 S.E.2d at 243 (“Error which substantially damages the defendant’s credibility cannot be held harmless where such credibility is essential to his defense.”). Accordingly, I would reverse Brooks’s conviction and remand for a new trial.
. The majority cites State v. Scott, 330 S.C. 125, 497 S.E.2d 735 (Ct.App.1998), to support the proposition that Brooks’s inconsistent statements give rise to an inference of guilt. Scott, however, is distinguishable from the instant case. On appeal, Scott challenged his conviction for breach of trust with fraudulent intent on the ground the trial judge erred in denying his motion for.a directed verdict. This Court affirmed the conviction, finding there was sufficient evidence to submit the case to the jury. This evidence included Scott’s apparently false explanation for missing bank deposits his employer claimed were misappropriated by Scott. Although I agree that Scott’s inconsistent statements could be considered evidence of guilty knowledge and intent which would be sufficient to submit the case to the jury, this is not the procedural posture of the instant case. Here, we are required to decide whether Brooks’s guilt is conclusively proven by competent evidence, such that no other rational conclusion can be reached. In light of this standard, I do not believe an inference of guilt based on Brooks's inconsistent statements is sufficient to find Brooks’s guilt is the only rational conclusion that can be reached from the evidence presented.
