cdTOCtest

1984), where the court held that the defendant’s prior
incidents of driving while under the influence offered to
prove his knowledge of his capacity to operate a motor
vehicle were inadmissible in aggravated assault
prosecution on the issue of whether the defendant
consciously disregarded a substantial and unjustifiable
risk that he would injure someone by driving his
automobile while intoxicated.

D. Prior Crimes - Motive

A wider range of evidence is generally admissible
when the motive or intent of the defendant is in issue.
State v. Covell, 157 N.J. 554, 565 (1999). In Covell, the
evidence in a prosecution for child luring was a statement
made by the defendant to police in connection with
another investigation that he had a “thing” for young
girls. The Supreme Court held that the statement was
admissible in that it made it more likely that the
defendant’s purpose in beckoning to a girl was to commit
a crime against her, an element of the luring offense. Id.
at 566-67.

In State v. Erazo, 126 N.J. 112, 130-31 (1991), the
court allowed evidence that the defendant had been
previously convicted of a crime and sentenced to up to 30
years in prison as evidence of motive, since the State’s
theory was that the defendant killed his victim to prevent
her from following through on a threat to revoke his
parole.

In State v. Marrero, 148 N.J. 469, 485-86 (1997), in
the context of finding the Appellate Division’s reversal of
a trial court ruling excluding the evidence to be harmless
error, the Supreme Court found evidence of the
defendant’s recent guilty plea to sexual assault, for which
he was pending sentence, to be probative in his
prosecution for a murder committed in the course of
another sexual assault, in part because it gave the
defendant a motive to kill his victim to avoid a revocation
of his bail and a greater sentence.

Evidence of a defendant’s bad conduct toward his ex-
girlfriend was admissible to show that he shot the
godfather of her children while motivated by jealousy.
State v. Nance, 148 N.J.376, 388 (1997). Other crimes
evidence has been used in other cases to demonstrate
jealousy as a motive. State v. Pitts, 116 N.J. 580, 599-603
(1989); State v. Lado, 275 N.J. Super. 140, 149-51 (App.
Div.), certif. denied, 138 N.J. 271 (1994); State v.
Breakiron, 210 N.J. Super. 442 (App. Div. 1986), aff’d in
part, rev’d in part o.g., 108 N.J. 591 (1987).

While the victim’s implication of the defendant in

the burning death of a dog was admissible on the issue of

the defendant’s motive to attempt to murder the victim,

the evidence of the dog-burning itself needed to be

“sanitized” due to its gruesome nature. State v. Collier,

316 N.J. Super. 181 (App. Div. 1998), aff’d o.b., 162 N.J.

27 (1999).

In State v. Crumb, 307 N.J. Super. 204, (App. Div.

1997), certif. denied, 153 N.J. 215 (1998), evidence of

racist and anti-Semitic writings by the defendant were

admissible to demonstrate his motive for beating a black

man to death.

Evidence of prior sexual acts can be admissible in a

later prosecution involving sexual misconduct to

demonstrate motive or intent. State v. Zeidell, 299 N.J.

Super. 613 (App. Div. 1997), rev’d o.g., 153 N.J. 417

(1998); State v. G.S., 278 N.J. Super. 151, 161-62 (App.

Div. 1994), rev’d o.g., 145 N.J. 460 (1996).

The defendant in State v. Zarinsky, 143 N.J. Super 35,

55-56 (App. Div. 1976), aff’d, 75 N.J. 101 (1977), was

charged with abducting and murdering a young woman.

The Appellate Division held that the State properly

presented evidence of the defendant’s previous attempts

to lure young women into his vehicle. This evidence was

admissible to show the defendant’s motive when he

offered a ride to the victim on the last day she was seen

alive.

Evidence of a victim’s testimony against the

defendant in a prior prosecution was admitted in State v.

Slocum, 130 N.J. Super. 358, 363-64 (App. Div. 1974),

to show the defendant’s motive for the savage beating he

inflicted on the victim during the course of a robbery.

The Slocum court held that this evidence was properly

admitted although there was a five year interval between

the crime and the witness’ prior testimony against the

defendant.

Evidence relating to defendant’s prior traffic offenses

and revocation of driver’s license was admissible to show

motive in prosecution for assault and battery on police

officers. State v. Smith, 55 N.J. 476 (1970).

E. Prior Crimes - State of Mind

N.J.R.E. 404(b) permits the admission of evidence of

other acts which are “‘so intertwined in time, place and

circumstances’ with the present charges as to evidence a

continuous state of mind.” State v. M.L., 253 N.J. Super.

13, 22-23 (App. Div. 1991), certif. denied, 127 N.J. 560