State v. Pogue
17 P.3d 1272 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Evidence Rule 404(b), evidence of a defendant's prior drug possession is inadmissible propensity evidence when offered to rebut a defense of unwitting possession, where the defendant claims ignorance of the drug's presence rather than ignorance of the substance's illegal nature.
Facts:
- Dionte Pogue was driving his sister's Cadillac when Officer Traverso observed him shield his face and make a turn without signaling.
- The officer activated his lights and siren, but Pogue did not immediately pull over, instead driving a few blocks to his grandmother's house.
- Pogue told the officer he failed to stop because his license was suspended and he wanted to avoid having his sister's car impounded.
- During a search of the car, a student officer found a clear plastic bag containing approximately 13 grams of crack cocaine between the front seat cushions.
- Several papers bearing Pogue's name were also found inside the car.
- At trial, Pogue testified that the cocaine was not his and he had no knowledge of its presence in the car.
- Pogue also suggested that the police might have planted the drugs, noting they were found by a second officer after the first officer had already searched the vehicle.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Washington charged Dionte Pogue with possession of cocaine in a state trial court.
- During the trial, the court, over Pogue's objection, permitted the State to ask Pogue if he had possessed cocaine in the past.
- The jury returned a guilty verdict, and Pogue was sentenced to five months of incarceration.
- Pogue appealed his conviction to the Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 1, making him the appellant and the State of Washington the respondent.
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 Evidence Rule 404(b) permit the admission of a defendant's prior drug possession to rebut a defense of unwitting possession and an allegation of police misconduct, where the defendant claims ignorance of the drug's presence in a car?
Opinions:
Majority - Becker, A.C.J.
No. Evidence of a defendant's prior drug possession is inadmissible propensity evidence under ER 404(b) when its only relevance is to show that because the defendant possessed drugs in the past, he likely knowingly possessed them during the charged incident. The court reasoned that ER 404(b) explicitly prohibits using prior bad acts to prove a person's character in order to show they acted in conformity with that character. The trial court admitted the evidence for two purposes: to rebut Pogue's unwitting possession defense by showing 'knowledge,' and to rebut his insinuation that police planted the evidence. Neither purpose was valid. Pogue's defense was that he did not know the bag was in the car, not that he did not know the substance was cocaine. Therefore, his prior possession had no relevance apart from a forbidden propensity inference. Furthermore, an allegation of police misconduct does not open the door to the defendant's prior criminal history, as Pogue made no sweeping claims about his own good character. The error in admitting the evidence was not harmless because the other evidence against Pogue was not overwhelming, and it is reasonably probable the jury would have acquitted him without the prejudicial evidence.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the strict prohibition against propensity evidence under Evidence Rule 404(b) in the context of drug possession cases. The court clarifies that a general 'unwitting possession' defense does not automatically open the door to a defendant's prior drug offenses. It draws a critical distinction between a defense based on ignorance of an item's presence versus ignorance of an item's nature, holding that prior acts are not relevant to the former without a more specific logical connection. This case limits the prosecution's ability to use a defendant's criminal record to undermine their credibility or defense, even when the defendant attacks the integrity of the police investigation.
