State v. Lykes

Supreme Court of New Jersey
933 A.2d 1274, 192 N.J. 519 (2006)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Under N.J.R.E. 404(b), evidence of a defendant's prior bad acts, such as previously handling cocaine, is admissible for the limited purpose of impeaching their testimony and proving knowledge when the defendant makes their lack of knowledge a central issue in the case, provided its probative value is not outweighed by prejudice and a proper limiting instruction is given.

Facts:

On July 26, 2000, plainclothes Jersey City police officers Louis Mecka and Roosevelt Cumberbach observed Thomas Lykes approach Daniel Veal.
The officers saw Lykes and Veal have a brief conversation, after which Lykes handed money to Veal.
Veal walked to a nearby tree, placed several small objects at its base, and returned to the corner.
Lykes then walked to the tree, retrieved the objects Veal had left, put them in his pants pocket, and walked away.
The officers radioed for assistance, and uniformed officers stopped Lykes.
When stopped, Lykes reached into his pocket and retrieved four vials which were later determined to contain cocaine.
At trial, Lykes testified that he found the four vials on the ground near a school and picked them up to dispose of them safely, suspecting they "could have been drugs or dangerous substances, rat poison, anything."
On cross-examination, after initially denying it, Lykes admitted that he had previously held a vial of cocaine in his hand.

Procedural Posture:

The State charged Thomas Lykes with third-degree possession of a controlled dangerous substance (cocaine) in the trial court.
Before trial, the court held a Sands/Brunson hearing and ruled that Lykes's 1990 cocaine possession conviction was too remote to be used for impeachment, but his 2000 resisting arrest conviction was admissible.
During trial, the court permitted the prosecutor to cross-examine Lykes about whether he had previously held a vial of cocaine, over a defense objection and a denied motion for a mistrial.
The jury returned a verdict finding Lykes guilty.
Lykes appealed to the Appellate Division, which affirmed the conviction in a divided decision, with one judge dissenting.
Based on the dissent, Lykes filed an appeal as of right to the Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does New Jersey Rule of Evidence 404(b) permit the prosecution to cross-examine a defendant about their prior handling of cocaine vials, which was related to a conviction previously deemed too remote for impeachment, when the defendant has placed their knowledge of the substance's identity directly at issue?

Opinions:

Majority - Justice Rivera-Soto

Yes. When a defendant places their knowledge of the contents of an item directly at issue, N.J.R.E. 404(b) permits the limited use of evidence regarding prior bad acts to impeach that claim and prove knowledge. By making his lack of knowledge the centerpiece of his defense, from his opening statement through his direct testimony, Lykes 'opened the door' to this line of questioning. The evidence was not offered to prove a propensity to commit crimes, but was highly relevant to the material issue of his knowledge. The court applied the four-part Cofield test and found it was satisfied: (1) the evidence was relevant to the material issue of knowledge; (2) it was similar in kind to the offense charged; (3) it was established by clear and convincing evidence through Lykes's own admission; and (4) its probative value was not outweighed by its prejudicial effect, especially because the trial court provided two clear and comprehensive limiting instructions to the jury.

Dissenting - Justice Albin

No. The trial court should not have permitted this line of questioning without following proper procedural safeguards. Evidence of prior crimes is highly prejudicial and should only be admitted after a trial court conducts a N.J.R.E. 104 hearing outside the presence of the jury to carefully weigh its relevance and potential for prejudice. The trial court failed to hold such a hearing to determine if the prior act was sufficiently similar to be relevant—for instance, if the vials from the prior incident looked like the vials in this case. By admitting this 'other-crime' evidence without an adequate record, the court created a substantial risk that the jury convicted Lykes based on his prior bad act rather than on the evidence related to the charged offense, thus depriving him of a fair trial.

Analysis:

This case clarifies the application of N.J.R.E. 404(b) when a defendant's state of mind is the central disputed issue. It reinforces that a defendant cannot use their claimed lack of knowledge as a shield while simultaneously preventing the prosecution from introducing highly probative evidence to rebut that specific claim. The decision highlights the crucial role of curative limiting instructions in mitigating the prejudice of 'other-crimes' evidence, allowing it to be used for narrow purposes like proving knowledge without becoming improper character evidence. It strongly affirms the 'opening the door' doctrine, where a defendant's own trial strategy can make otherwise inadmissible evidence relevant and admissible for a limited purpose.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: State v. Lykes (2006)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature