Faulkner test in Maryland

2025These commonalities, the circuit court acknowledged, “standing alone . . . wouldn’t be enough but it’s all circumstantial evidence, it all works together.” Thus, the circuit court found “that by clear and convincing evidence, the identity exception has been met[,]” and clear and convincing evidence of “ill will for motive 13 The three-part Faulkner test for admissible evidence under Maryland Rule 5-404(b) requires: (1) the evidence of other bad acts is relevant for a non-propensity purpose; (2) the defendant’s involvement in the other bad acts is proven by clear and convincing evidence; and (3

2025These commonalities, the circuit court acknowledged, “standing alone . . . wouldn’t be enough but it’s all circumstantial evidence, it all works together.” Thus, the circuit court found “that by clear and convincing evidence, the identity exception has been met[,]” and clear and convincing evidence of “ill will for motive 13 The three-part Faulkner test for admissible evidence under Maryland Rule 5-404(b) requires: (1) the evidence of other bad acts is relevant for a non-propensity purpose; (2) the defendant’s involvement in the other bad acts is proven by clear and convincing evidence; and (3

2001See also Streater, supra, 352 Md. at 809, 724 A.2d 111 (“[Situations arise in which evidence of other crimes is particularly material to a contested issue in the case____”).

2001See also Streater, supra, 352 Md. at 809, 724 A.2d 111 (“[Situations arise in which evidence of other crimes is particularly material to a contested issue in the case____”).

2026“In other crimes evidence issues, as to whether a matter fits within an exception in the first instance, we extend no deference to a trial court’s decision.” Wynn, 351 Md. at 318 . 21 Although we agree with Jordan that the challenged evidence was not admissible under an intrinsic evidence theory, we conclude that it was admitted properly as specially relevant evidence to show his motive and modus operandi of Jordan’s identity, both as Nichols’s accomplice in the Fowlkes robbery and as Mattocks’s accomplice in the mailbox theft scheme.

2026“In other crimes evidence issues, as to whether a matter fits within an exception in the first instance, we extend no deference to a trial court’s decision.” Wynn, 351 Md. at 318 . 21 Although we agree with Jordan that the challenged evidence was not admissible under an intrinsic evidence theory, we conclude that it was admitted properly as specially relevant evidence to show his motive and modus operandi of Jordan’s identity, both as Nichols’s accomplice in the Fowlkes robbery and as Mattocks’s accomplice in the mailbox theft scheme.

2025This balancing test is concerned with unfair prejudice, and “[w]hat is ‘unfair’ is only the incremental tendency of the evidence to prove that the defendant was a ‘bad man.’” Cousar v. State, 198 Md.

2025This balancing test is concerned with unfair prejudice, and “[w]hat is ‘unfair’ is only the incremental tendency of the evidence to prove that the defendant was a ‘bad man.’” Cousar v. State, 198 Md.

2025Under the third part of the Faulkner test, the circuit court exercises discretion whether to admit evidence after weighing “the necessity for and probativeness of the evidence concerning the collateral criminal act against the untoward prejudice which is likely to be the consequence of its admission.” Faulkner, 314 Md. at 640–41 (quoting Cross v. State, 282 Md. 468, 474 (1978) (emphasis added in Faulkner)).

2025Under the third part of the Faulkner test, the circuit court exercises discretion whether to admit evidence after weighing “the necessity for and probativeness of the evidence concerning the collateral criminal act against the untoward prejudice which is likely to be the consequence of its admission.” Faulkner, 314 Md. at 640–41 (quoting Cross v. State, 282 Md. 468, 474 (1978) (emphasis added in Faulkner)).

2004In Klauenberg v. State, 355 Md. 528, 549 , 735 A.2d 1061, 1072 (1999) this Court first addressed the issue of what constitutes a wrong or an act under Rule 5-404(b).

2004In Klauenberg v. State, 355 Md. 528, 549 , 735 A.2d 1061, 1072 (1999) this Court first addressed the issue of what constitutes a wrong or an act under Rule 5-404(b).

2001See Sessoms, 357 Md. at 285 , 744 A.2d 9 (stating that Md.

2001See Sessoms, 357 Md. at 285 , 744 A.2d 9 (stating that Md.

1999COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT: Very well, your Honor. [2] As this Court said in Ayers v. State, 335 Md. 602, 628 , 645 A.2d 22, 34 (1994), "if given the opportunity to correct or clarify its [ruling], the court might have done so." [3] After holding that the trial court's failure to adequately assess the reliability or prejudice of the prior acts evidence constituted reversible error, the Majority actually assesses the reliability and prejudice of the evidence by applying the three prong Faulkner test.

1999COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT: Very well, your Honor. [2] As this Court said in Ayers v. State, 335 Md. 602, 628 , 645 A.2d 22, 34 (1994), "if given the opportunity to correct or clarify its [ruling], the court might have done so." [3] After holding that the trial court's failure to adequately assess the reliability or prejudice of the prior acts evidence constituted reversible error, the Majority actually assesses the reliability and prejudice of the evidence by applying the three prong Faulkner test.

1998See Crawford, 582 N.W.2d at 811 (dissenting opinion).

1998See Crawford, 582 N.W.2d at 811 (dissenting opinion).