State of Oklahoma v. Samuel Rayfael Burks and Sam J. Agree

Date: 01-23-1979

Case Number: 1979 OK CR 10

Judge: Not Available

Court: District Court, Washington County, Oklahoma

Plaintiff's Attorney: Washington County, Oklahoma District Attorney's Office

Defendant's Attorney:

Description: Bartlesville, Oklahoma, criminal defense lawyer represented the Defendant charged with robbery with a firearm.

¶2 The general rule is that when one is put on trial, one is to be convicted if at all by evidence which shows one guilty of the offense charged; and proof that one is guilty of other offenses not connected with that for which one is on trial must be excluded. Smith v. State, 5 Okl.Cr. 67, 113 P. 204 (1911) and Atnip v. State, Okl.Cr., 564 P.2d 660 (1977). On the other hand, there are five generally accepted exceptions to this rule. Evidence of other offenses may be admissible where it tends to establish motive, intent, absence of mistake or accident, identity or a common scheme or plan which embraces the commission of two or more crimes so related to each other that proof of one tends to establish the other. Miller v. State, 13 Okl.Cr. 176, 163 P. 131 (1917), and Atnip, supra.

¶8 We have previously stated that "for evidence of other offenses to be admissible, there must be a visible connection between the crimes." Roulston v. State, Okl.Cr., 307 P.2d 861 (1957), citing Pressley v. State, 71 Okl.Cr. 436, 112 P.2d 809 (1941); Nemecek v. State, 72 Okl.Cr. 195, 114 P.2d 492, 135 A.L.R. 1149 (1941); Herren v. State, 75 Okl.Cr. 251, 130 P.2d 325 (1942); Landon v. State, 77 Okl.Cr. 190, 140 P.2d 242 (1943); Byers v. State, 78 Okl.Cr. 267, 147 P.2d 185 (1944). This is but another way of stating that in order to be admissible the evidence must have probative value. In the instant case, we hold that the evidence of the burglary did not have probative value with regard to the robbery. No one saw the appellants at or around the house which was burglarized. A telephone repair person saw a car with one black person in it, but he did not know that the house had been burglarized, or that the car had come from the house; nor was he able to identify anyone as the driver of the car. Nevertheless, knowing of the armed robbery committed in Bartlesville the previous day by four blacks, he wrote down the tag number and gave it to the police. The car was later seen in Coffeyville, Kansas, and at that time the appellants were the driver and the passenger. In the car there were a basket of clothes and two weapons taken from the burglarized house. The evidence strongly incriminates the appellants with the burglary of the house and the larceny of the automobile, but we are unable to perceive a connection between the burglary/larceny [594 P.2d 774] and the armed robbery the previous day. We therefore hold that it was error to admit the evidence of the burglary in the robbery trial.

Google A.I.

Evidence of a defendant's other crimes or prior bad acts is generally inadmissible in court to prove that they have a bad character and are therefore more likely to have committed the current offense. This is known as "propensity evidence," and it is typically excluded to prevent a jury from convicting based on past misdeeds rather than on the specific facts of the current case.

However, evidence of other crimes may be admissible for specific, non-character-based purposes, which can be remembered by the acronym "MIMIC". The judge must determine if the probative value of this evidence outweighs the danger of unfair prejudice to the defendant.

MIMIC exceptions for admissibility

Evidence of other crimes may be introduced to prove:

Motive: To show why the defendant may have committed the charged crime. For example, evidence of a defendant's financial struggles or drug habit could be admitted to establish a motive for theft.

Intent: To prove the defendant had the necessary state of mind to commit the crime. Evidence of a previous fraudulent act could be used to prove intent in a case alleging a similar scheme.

Absence of mistake or accident: To counter a defendant's claim that their actions were a mistake or an accident. In a case of a house fire, evidence that the defendant previously set other fires could be used to prove the current fire was not an accident.

Identity: To show that the defendant committed the crime by establishing a "signature" pattern or modus operandi (MO). The other crimes must be sufficiently similar to the one charged to identify the defendant as the perpetrator.

Common scheme or plan: To establish that the charged crime was part of a larger plan or conspiracy. This differs from proving a person's general character by demonstrating a specific and interconnected sequence of criminal actions.

Other permitted uses of prior bad acts

Prior bad acts may also be admissible in the following scenarios:

Witness impeachment: A defendant who chooses to testify may be subject to impeachment with evidence of their prior convictions, though courts must balance the evidence's value against its prejudicial effect.

Intrinsic acts: Evidence of other acts that are "inextricably intertwined" with the charged offense may be admissible to provide a complete and contextual narrative of the crime.

Sex offenses: Federal rules, and many state laws, allow for more liberal admission of a defendant's prior sexual assault or child molestation offenses in related cases. This is an exception to the general prohibition against propensity evidence.

Rebuttal: If a defendant introduces evidence of their own good character, the prosecution can then introduce evidence of their bad character to rebut that claim.

Procedural safeguards

To protect the defendant from unfair prejudice, courts have several requirements for the admission of prior bad act evidence:

Pre-trial notice: In criminal cases, prosecutors are often required to provide reasonable written notice to the defense of any "other crimes, wrongs, or acts" they intend to introduce at trial.

Balancing test: Before admitting the evidence, a judge must determine that its probative value for a legitimate
purpose (such as proving motive or intent) is not substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, or misleading the jury.

Limiting instructions: If the evidence is admitted, the judge must provide the jury with instructions on the specific, limited purpose for which it can be considered, and that it is not to be used to infer the defendant's character.

AI responses may include mistakes. For legal advice, consult a professional. Learn more

Outcome: The Defendants were found guilty and were sentenced to 15 years.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: