The prior acts of alleged evidence outlined by the Prosecutor was filed in Pike County Common Pleas Court on Feb 22, 2021.
IMO, I think much of prior acts evidence pursuant to Rule 404b will be deemed no longer relevant or will not be admitted following JW's agreement to plead guilty to all related charges -- essentially confirming the plot to kill the Rhoden family members stemmed from a failing relationship between Wagner and Hanna Rhoden, who had a child together (i.e., the motive).
Another important factor affecting prior acts evidence is that JW admitted to personally killing five of the eight victims. JW also led investigators to the weapons that were used in three of the killings, along with vehicles used during the offenses.
Prosecutors say that based on all this information, they have overwhelming evidence that the Wagner family was responsible for planning and carrying out the homicides. Direct evidence is far more valuable than the hurdle Prosecutors faced trying to admit prior acts evidence.
Court Clarifies Rule on Admissibility of ‘Other-Acts’ Evidence
Sept 22, 2020
The Ohio Supreme Court recently clarified the standards under which a
prosecutor may introduce evidence of a defendant's prior bad acts in a trial for a new crime.
The Court’s
opinion stated the
decisions are meant to help Ohio courts and attorneys by clearing up “some of the confusion that exists regarding the use of ‘other-acts evidence’ ” under the Ohio Rules of Evidence.
Supreme Court Analyzes Use of Other-Act Evidence
In the
Hartman decision, Justice DeWine explained that under Ohio Evid.R. 404(B), evidence of other “crimes, wrongs, or acts”
cannot be admitted to prove the accused has the “propensity” or the natural tendency to behave in a particular way. The rule is meant to prevent a jury from concluding that because the accused has acted in a similar way in the past, the person must be guilty of the currently alleged crime.
While other-acts evidence cannot be used to prove a person’s tendency to commit crime, the rule does allow a court to admit the evidence for several other purposes, such as proof of motive, intent, plan, or identity, or that the act was not a mistake or accident.
The opinion stated the courts have “long struggled with differentiating” whether the evidence is being used for a purpose on the “permitted list” or being used improperly in trying to prove the accused’s guilt based solely on past behavior.
The Court outlined a process for trial courts to follow when determining whether other-acts evidence can be admitted and explained ways that the courts can better instruct juries about how to consider the evidence if it is used.
Evidence Admission Process Explained
The Court explained that
the trial court first must determine that the evidence is relevant not only to the case but also to the particular purpose for which the state is offering it, such as to prove motive or intent.
The trial court should also ensure that the evidence is being used to address a matter that is actually in dispute between the
parties. For instance, it would be improper for a court to allow other-acts evidence to be used to
identify the defendant as the perpetrator when the
defendant has admitted being involved, but instead claims another defense to the crime.
The Court provided examples of the most common uses of other-acts evidence. One type is “modus operandi” evidence, which is relevant to prove identity. The opinion explained that modus operandi evidence is evidence of “signature, fingerprint-like characteristics” unique enough to suggest that the
prior act and the current crime were committed by the same person.
Another common use of other-acts evidence is to show that the prior act and the current crime were part of the same overarching “plan” or “scheme.” This evidence may be used to identify the accused as the perpetrator or to explain the accused’s motive or reason for committing the current crime. Using an episode of the television show “Breaking Bad” as an example, the Court explained that in a prosecution for illegally manufacturing drugs, evidence that a defendant recently stole the ingredient methylamine from a warehouse could be admissible to show the defendant’s scheme to produce methamphetamine.
Finally, the Court explained that other-acts evidence can be used to show that the defendant’s conduct was not accidental or the result of a mistake. This is relevant to establish that the accused acted with criminal intent.
Once the trial court determines that the evidence can be admitted under Evid.R. 404(B), it must conduct a balancing test under Evid.R. 403(A) and consider whether the benefit of the evidence outweighs the risk of it being unfairly prejudicial to the defendant.
The Court explained that trial courts should document their analysis so that reviewing courts can follow the logic behind the court’s decision to admit or exclude the evidence.
The Court also said that
the trial court’s instructions to juries must be tailored to the facts of the case and explain, in plain language, the purpose for which the other-acts evidence may or may not be considered. The Court noted the jury instructions in both Hartman’s and Smith’s cases related to the jurors that the evidence could be considered for every purpose on the “permitted list,” even inapplicable ones, and did not explain the different terms.
To tell a jury a certain piece of evidence can be considered as “proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity or absence of mistake” imparts “nothing meaningful,” the opinion stated, noting it is “akin to telling the jurors that the evidence may be considered for any purpose.”
Court Clarifies Rule on Admissibility of ‘Other-Acts’ Evidence
https://www.scribd.com/document/501686655/Billy-Wagner-404-B-motion#from_embed