 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Mikell v. State11/19/2001
at their phone conversation had been only about Brown's DUI.
After reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury's determination of guilt, we conclude that a rational trier of fact could have found Mikell guilty of murder.
2. Before trial, the trial court granted Mikell's motion in limine prohibiting evidence concerning his extramarital affairs, but subsequently reversed its ruling and permitted questioning about Mikell's relationship with two women. Sonja Brown testified that she met Mikell three or four times at the same motel where the victim was found and that each time he drove his lowboy truck to the motel. She remembered paging him after she checked into the motel, leaving her room or phone number on his pager. She further testified that, as a prelude to sex, he would remove her blouse first and fold or drape it neatly, but on cross-examination said that she sometimes removed her shirt and would fold or drape it. The defendant contends that this testimony about his technique in handling the blouse improperly placed his character into evidence. The state may not introduce evidence of general character or present bad character evidence in a criminal case to prove criminal conduct. If, however, the evidence of other acts is relevant for some other purpose than to show a probability that the defendant committed the crime because he is a man of criminal character, the evidence is admissible despite incidentally placing the defendant's character in issue. Thus, we have previously allowed evidence of a husband's extramarital affairs when the evidence was relevant to disprove his theory that another man attacked his wife and to show a wife's motive and scheme for the murder of her husband.
At trial, Mikell testified that he was working when the murder was committed and challenged the failure of the police to investigate the possibility of other suspects. Brown's testimony about her prior sexual relationship with Mikell was relevant to prove identity and to show that the defendant had followed a similar pattern in having a sexual rendevous at the same motel . Although the fact that Mikell had an extramarital affair with Brown incidentally placed his character into evidence, the evidence of their prior sexual relationship would have been admitted anyway to explain their discussion about Mikell's marriage on the day that his wife was killed and his later attempts to influence Brown's description of the call. The probative value in explaining the reason the victim was found dressed in her bra and shorts in a motel room outweighed the prejudicial effect of the testimony concerning the different ways that Brown's blouse had been handled during their relationship.
Mikell also challenges the admission of evidence that he engaged in sexual relations with April Owens three weeks before and one week after his wife's death. Since Mikell testified that he had a good relationship with his wife and was not considering a divorce , the trial court properly admitted the evidence of this second affair for purposes of impeachment.
3. Because Mikell's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is based on the trial court's ruling that defense counsel opened the door to the prejudicial testimony and we have affirmed the admission of the evidence on other grounds, we conclude that trial counsel did not provide Mikell with ineffective assistance of counsel by questioning witnesses about the failure to process the rape kit and other physical evidence or the state of his marriage.
Judgment affirmed.
All the Justices concur.
Page 1 2 Georgia DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|