reversible error in the trial judge’s admission of property
crimes to refute the defendant’s claim of entrapment on
the charge of distribution of C.D.S. The court directed
that, prior to their admission, past convictions must be
carefully compared to the present charge for similarities
in objective, method, and mental state of the defendant.
This holding significantly narrowed the general
admissibility of prior crimes in entrapment cases
suggested by State v. Rockholt, 96 N.J. 570 (1984).
As previously noted, other crimes evidence may be
admitted to prove a material issue in a criminal trial.
Below is an illustrative listing of circumstances in which
such evidence has been admitted.
B. Prior Crimes - Character Witness
N.J.R.E. 405(a) is intended to continue the explicit
prohibition of former Evid. R. 47 in the impeachment of
a defendant’s character witness by inquiry into
knowledge of the defendant’s alleged criminal acts not
the subject of a criminal conviction. Thus, evidence of
the defendant’s criminal conduct may be admitted only
on the basis of proven convictions and only in an attempt
to impeach the direct testimony of a character witness
who has testified on his behalf. See State v. La Porte, 62
N.J. 312 (1974).
Use of a defendant’s remote prior convictions to
impeach the testimony of a reputation character witness
who had known the defendant as a “good family man” for
five or six years was denied in State v. Campbell, 212 N.J.
Super. 322 (Law Div. 1986). In a pretrial Sands hearing
the defendant was able to exclude, for use in impeaching
his own testimony, introduction of two criminal
convictions 17 and 22 years old. The court distinguished
on both facts and law State v. Whittle, 52 N.J. 408 (1968),
a pre-Sands case wherein the character witnesses had
known the defendant at the time of his remote
convictions and, further, where evidence of the
defendant’s convictions had already been revealed to the
jury during defendant’s testimony.
C. Prior Crimes - Knowledge
In State v. Stevens, 115 N.J. 289 (1989), the court
held that evidence of instances where a police officer
previously used his office to intimidate women into
disrobing or providing sexual favors was relevant to show
that the defendant conducted searches of two women to
gratify his sexual desires (his purpose) and his knowledge
that such conduct was an unauthorized exercise of his
official position. However, since the latter issue was not
a contested one, the evidence was not admissible to
establish that element of the offense.In State v. Campisi, 47 N.J. Super. 455 (App. Div.
1957), the defendant had been convicted for unlawful
possession of a hypodermic needle and for unlawful use
of a narcotic drug. On appeal, the conviction for
possession of a hypodermic needle was affirmed and the
conviction for unlawful use of a narcotic drug was
reversed. During the later trial under reindictment for
unlawful possession of a narcotic drug, evidence was
admitted concerning the defendant’s use of a narcotic
drug. The court held that in a prosecution for unlawful
possession of narcotics, evidence of use of the narcotics by
the defendant was relevant to the question of his guilt or
innocence and was properly admitted.The Appellate Division held in State v. Wilkinson,
126 N.J. Super. 553 (App. Div. 1973), certif. denied, 63
N.J. 562 (1973), that possession of a controlled
dangerous substance is not punishable unless the
defendant knows that the material he has in his control
is an unlawful substance. Therefore, where a defendant
is charged with possession of marijuana, the State may
offer evidence of his simultaneous possession of other
drugs. When the defendant is charged with possession
with intent to distribute a controlled dangerous
substance, the State may offer similar evidence. Such
evidence is admissible to prove that the defendant
intended to distribute or dispose of the drugs which he
possessed.In State v. Rajnai, 132 N.J. Super. 530, 537 (App.
Div. 1975), narcotics paraphernalia discarded from an
automobile during a search was held properly admitted
to show that the occupants of the vehicle had knowledge
of the character of the narcotics found in the vehicle. In
State v. McMenamin, 133 N.J. Super. 521, 525 (App.
Div. 1975), a defendant was charged with possessing
LSD. The defendant, who shared a room with his
brother, admitted that he and his brother jointly
possessed marijuana found in the room but claimed he
had no knowledge of the existence of the LSD. Six live
marijuana plants found in the room were held to have
been properly admitted to demonstrate his knowledge of
the presence of the LSD.Evidence of defendant’s two prior accidents was
admissible in prosecution for willful or wanton death by
automobile to prove knowledge of defendant’s capacity
to operate the vehicle. State v. Soney, 177 N.J. Super. 47
(App. Div. 1980), certif. denied, 87 N.J. 313 (1981).
Compare State v. Niemeyer, 195 N.J. Super. 559 (Law Div.