Oklahoma Criminal Defense Blog

Evidence of other crimes introduced at a trial is so clearly poisonous that the rules of evidence generally prohibit such evidence.  Intuitively, an observer knows the impact such evidence would make on a jury – regardless of the strength of the evidence of guilt offered for the charges being faced.  Such evidence would have a fatal impact upon a verdict.

Evidence of “other crimes evidence” is not admissible to prove a person’s character in order to prove the person acted in conformity with such behavior under the Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 404(b).  It is similarly prohibited under the Oklahoma Rules of Evidence, Rule ??-ck this rule online.

However, evidence of other crimes may be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of guilty knowledge.  The United States Supreme Court found such a circumstance in Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681, taking the case on certiori from the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Huddleston was charged in federal court with one count of selling stolen property in interstate commerce and one count of possessing stolen property in interstate commerce.  Both counts related to portions of a shipment of stolen Memorex videocassette.

The evidence presented at trial was that a trailer containing over 32,000 blank videocassette tapes was stolen from an Overnight Express yard in South Holland, Illinois.  The manufacture cost of each videocassette tape was $4.53.  Soon after the theft, between 2 and 6 days after the theft, Huddleston contacted a manager in Ypsilanti, Michigan, seeking to sell at least 500 blank Memorex videocassettes for a price between $2.75 to $3.00 per tape.  He ultimately sold 5,000 tapes, which he delivered to various customers.

Undisputed at trial was whether the tapes were stolen. The only material issue at trial was whether Huddleston knew the tapes were stolen.  To do so, the government introduced evidence of “similar acts, ” and the trial court ruled that the evidence had “clear relevance” as to Huddleston’s knowledge.  The first piece of such evidence was the testimony of a store record owner, who testified Huddleston offered, just two months before the offer to the Ypsilanti manager, to sell him new 12″ black and white television sets for $28.00 a piece.  Huddleston indicated he could obtain several thousand of the television sets. The store owner purchased 38 of the sets.

The second piece of evidence of “similar acts” was the testimony of an undercover FBI agent posing as a buyer for an appliance store.  He testified that Huddleston, one month after the Memorex tape offer, offered to sell him a large quantity of Amana appliances, 20 refrigerators, 2 ranges and 40 icemakers, for $8,000.  The appliances were delivered, part of a shipment that was stolen.  They had a value of about $20,000.

Huddleston testified he did not know any of the items were stolen.  At the close of the trial, the prosecutor argued that Huddleston was not on trial for the other appliances, and the trial court instructed the jury that they were to consider the evidence of the similar acts only in reference to Huddleston’s guilty knowledge that the Memorex tapes were stolen, not to prove Huddleston’s bad character.  The jury convicted Huddleston, and you can bet it was because of the evidence of the “similar acts.”  Understandably, Huddleston’s lawyers argued on appeal that he had been subjected to improper prejudice, to no avail.  The Court cited Federal Rule of Evidence, Rule 403, which provides relevant evidence may be excluded if the trial judge finds “its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.”

The government did not prove at trial the television sets were stolen.  Huddleston’s lawyers urged that was critical.  The Supreme Court considered different levels of certainty the trial court, before admitting such evidence, ought to make by way of preliminary finding before admitting the evidence of similar acts.  Instead of the “clear and convincing” standard urged by one panel of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals or the “preponderance” standard by another panel of the same Court.

The Supreme Court decided that the evidence had been introduced at trial for a proper purpose, it fit the requirements as stated in the text of of Rule 404(b), and that was enough to make it admissible.  The television sets need not have been proven stolen to be admitted.  No preliminary finding was necessary by the trial judge.  It was up to the jury to make its own conclusions about whether the television sets were stolen in its verdict.

As criminal defense attorneys will tell you, an attorney is expected to defend someone suspected of a crime.  That was not the case in New Mexico earlier this month.  The lawyer called the police, but she did so when a man apparently told her to do so.

Lauren Oliveros called the police in Albuquerque, New Mexico, to report a man walked into her law office and told her had killed two people the day before and wanted to turn himself in.  The man told her where the bodies could be found.

Ralph Montoya wanted to give himself up.  He was already on bail for attacking these very two victims weeks before.  Police found the bodies of Stefanie Gray and her boyfirend, Hector Torres at Torres’ home.  Ms. Gray was a high school teacher, and Torres was a professor of English at the University of New Mexico.  Gray was also a graduate student at the University of New Mexico due to defend her thesis this month.

Following the tip from Montoya, police went to Torres’ home, kicked in the back door and found their bodies in the house.  Police reported they found a handgun was in Torres’ left hand, pointing at his head.  One officer said the handgun appeared to have been placed there, but that could be one of those “police opinions” that creep into the courtroom and are claimed to rest on some sort of expertise, but which are really based on nothing more than “hunch”.  In other words, police routinely claim to know things that they really do not know.  But none of that apparently matters to solving this case.

At the time of these deaths, Montoya was on bail for attacking Ms. Gary and Mr. Torres. In that earlier incident, Montoya reportedly forced his way into the front door, chased Gray into a back bedroom, jumped on her and kicked her, all while Torres was fighting him.  Gray broke free, Montoya pulled a knife, and Torres started talking.  Torres must have been a pretty good English professor because he talked Torres into dropping the knife.

Gray then obtained from the court in Sandoval County a restraining order against Montoya, who was then released on bail on the charges of kidnapping, aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, aggravated assault on a household member  and aggravated burglary.  It was while on bail for this incident that Montoya allegedly confessed to going to Torres’ home and killing Gray and Torres.

This was not Montoya’s first rodeo.   In 1995, Montoya pleaded guilty to charges of stalking, assault, attempted arson and attempted breaking and entering after a complaint from a student at New Mexico State University in Las Cruses.  For that, he received probation for a year.      But that was not enough, so in 1998, another woman from Las Cruses obtained a restraining order against Montoya.  She claimed that Montoya had made 15 to 20 threatening telephone calls a day for two months and that she had seen him near apartment window several times.

With a belly still not full, Montoya had an incident in 2005 with a different woman, this one from Rio Rancho.  She complained that Montoya had harassed her for a month after they had dated briefly.  She said he would show up at her home at her new boyfriend’s home, but no charges were ever filed.

Nadine Hamby, spokeswoman for the Albuquerque Police Department, summed up Montoya’s attitude pretty well.  “Obviously ‘no’ was not something he wanted to hear,” Hamby said.   As to the subjects of Montoya’s serial attention, she said: “It appears he wouldn’t leave them alone until he found someone new.”