State v. Cotton
351 S.E.2d 277 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1987
Facts
The victim was asleep in her Burlington apartment at approximately 3:00 a.m. on 29 July 1984 when she was awakened by a tall "light-skinned" black male. The assailant covered her mouth, held a knife to her throat, threatened her, and committed cunnilingus and sexual intercourse against her will. The victim escaped through the rear door when the assailant went into another room. Later, in a live lineup, the victim positively identified the defendant as her assailant. Two other similar break-ins and sexual assaults occurred on the same night near the site of the victim's apartment, with a very similar modus operandi. The victim of one of these other attacks viewed the identical lineup and positively identified a person other than the defendant as the perpetrator.
Procedural history
The defendant appealed, contending the trial court erred by excluding evidence. This court agreed, granting a new trial for first degree rape and first degree burglary. A first degree sexual offense conviction was remanded to the Superior Court, Alamance County, as no judgment had been entered and it was not ripe for appellate review.
Issue
Did the trial court err by excluding evidence that another person, identified by a different victim from the same lineup, committed a similar crime on the same night, which tended to show that person committed the crimes for which the defendant was charged?
Holding
Yes, the trial court erred by excluding the evidence. The defendant is entitled to a new trial on the charges of first degree rape and first degree burglary.
Rule
Evidence of other offenses is inadmissible if its only relevancy is to show the character or disposition of the accused, but it is admissible if it tends to prove any other relevant fact, such as identity (Rule 404(b)). This rule applies equally to allow a defendant to introduce evidence of very similar crimes by another person when such evidence tends to show that the other person committed the crime for which the defendant is on trial. Under Rule 401, evidence that another committed the crime is relevant and admissible if it points directly to the guilt of the other party and is inconsistent with the defendant's guilt, doing more than creating a mere inference. The incidents must be sufficiently similar and not too remote in time to be more probative than prejudicial.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener
Case brief last reviewed . Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.