Summary
The Supreme Court of Wyoming reviewed the admissibility of uncharged misconduct evidence under Wyoming Rule of Evidence 404(b) in a prosecution for taking indecent liberties with a minor. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting evidence of similar prior sexual misconduct despite the substantial passage of time. The court affirmed the judgment and sentence.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the district court abused its discretion by ruling that testimony concerning Hart's prior uncharged sexual misconduct was admissible under W.R.E. 404(b).
- Whether the substantial remoteness in time of the prior alleged misconduct rendered the evidence inadmissible as a matter of law.
Holdings
- The district court did not abuse its discretion by finding the proposed testimony admissible for proper noncharacter purposes, including motive, intent, absence of mistake or accident, and related purposes supported by the record, because the evidence was relevant and its probative value was not outweighed by unfair prejudice.
- W.R.E. 404(b) does not impose a specific temporal limit on similar-act evidence. Remoteness is one factor in the admissibility analysis, and evidence of acts more than twenty-five years old may be admitted when, in context, it remains reliable, relevant, and probative and the trial court reasonably determines that its probative value outweighs its prejudicial effect.
Key quotations
“We do not choose to impose an arbitrary year or month limitation of evidence admissible under W.R.E. 404(b).” (¶ 22)
“The remoteness in time of the uncharged misconduct testimony was a factor to be considered by the jury in determining the weight the testimony should be given.” (¶ 30)
Factual background
A sixteen-year-old girl reported that Hart, her great-aunt's husband, fondled and digitally penetrated her during a car trip while other adults were present and Hart's wife was sleeping. The State proposed testimony from several adult relatives who alleged that Hart had sexually molested them when they were children, in circumstances involving overnight stays, family relationships, and the presence or unawareness of other adults. The prior alleged acts occurred approximately twenty-five to thirty years before the charged conduct and were materially similar to the allegations involving the victim.
Procedural history
Hart was charged with taking indecent liberties with a minor. Before trial, the district court held a hearing on the admissibility of four witnesses' testimony concerning prior alleged sexual misconduct and ruled that testimony by two witnesses was admissible, while reserving a ruling on two other witnesses. After the court issued additional findings identifying permissible purposes and concluding that the evidence was more probative than prejudicial, Hart entered a conditional plea. The district court entered judgment and imposed a suspended sentence with jail and probation, and Hart timely appealed.