EVIDENCE OF COLLATERAL ACTS IN ALABAMA
EVIDENCE OF COLLATERAL ACTS IN ALABAMA
Collateral Acts
Rule of Evidence Ala.R.Evid. 404(b), provides for: 1) the exclusion of collateral acts offered to show character – good or bad --, and; 2) provides exceptions, such as where a collateral act of the defendant is offered to show motive, intent or plan. Thus, for the Burbank evidence to be admissible under the “collateral act” exception, it cannot be used to show how “bad” an actor DG is, but must be couched in terms of motive, intent or plan.
Pattern and Practice
Frequently, lawyers confuse Rule 404(b) “collateral acts,” with the phrase “pattern and practice” and Rule 406. There is no requirement of a “pattern” under Rule 404(b) “collateral acts.” Evidence of a single similar firing may be admissible. E.g., Marshall v. State, [Ms. 1070461, 2007 WL 2459967] ___ So.2d ___ (Ala.Crim.App. 2007).
This is in contrast to Rule 406, Ala.R.Evid., related to “pattern and practice” or “habit,” which does require the offeror to come forward with proof of multiple, similar acts. See C. Gamble, Gamble’s Alabama Rules of Evidence 406 at “Practice Pointers” para. 4 (“[j]udicial emphasis appears to fall upon the concept that habit requires a regular response to a repeated situation”).
Finally, Gore v. BMW addressed the constitutionality of Alabama’s methods for imposing punitive damages. In conjunction with the Hammond and Green Oil, it is a part of Alabama’s judicial review of punitive damage awards for excessiveness.
It does not in any way expand the Alabama Rules of Evidence, and in specific, does not expand what may be shown at trial. See BMW of North America v. Gore, 510 U.S. 559 (1996).
Collateral Acts
Rule of Evidence Ala.R.Evid. 404(b), provides for: 1) the exclusion of collateral acts offered to show character – good or bad --, and; 2) provides exceptions, such as where a collateral act of the defendant is offered to show motive, intent or plan. Thus, for the Burbank evidence to be admissible under the “collateral act” exception, it cannot be used to show how “bad” an actor DG is, but must be couched in terms of motive, intent or plan.
Pattern and Practice
Frequently, lawyers confuse Rule 404(b) “collateral acts,” with the phrase “pattern and practice” and Rule 406. There is no requirement of a “pattern” under Rule 404(b) “collateral acts.” Evidence of a single similar firing may be admissible. E.g., Marshall v. State, [Ms. 1070461, 2007 WL 2459967] ___ So.2d ___ (Ala.Crim.App. 2007).
This is in contrast to Rule 406, Ala.R.Evid., related to “pattern and practice” or “habit,” which does require the offeror to come forward with proof of multiple, similar acts. See C. Gamble, Gamble’s Alabama Rules of Evidence 406 at “Practice Pointers” para. 4 (“[j]udicial emphasis appears to fall upon the concept that habit requires a regular response to a repeated situation”).
Finally, Gore v. BMW addressed the constitutionality of Alabama’s methods for imposing punitive damages. In conjunction with the Hammond and Green Oil, it is a part of Alabama’s judicial review of punitive damage awards for excessiveness.
It does not in any way expand the Alabama Rules of Evidence, and in specific, does not expand what may be shown at trial. See BMW of North America v. Gore, 510 U.S. 559 (1996).