State v. Wade
989 P.2d 576, 98 Wash. App. 328 (1999)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under ER 404(b), evidence of prior bad acts is inadmissible to prove criminal intent when the only connection to the charged offense is the defendant's propensity to commit similar crimes; additional, non-propensity-based factual similarities between the acts are required, and mere possession of a quantity of drugs, even with expert testimony, is insufficient to prove intent to deliver without other corroborating evidence of distribution.
Facts:
- On February 9, 1997, Officer Joe Mettler observed Charles Wade in the Hilltop area of Tacoma.
- Mettler invited Wade to talk, but Wade refused and walked away.
- As Wade walked away, Mettler saw him fumbling with a pocket and observed a plastic baggy-type wrapper drop to the ground.
- Wade then began running away from Mettler.
- Mettler recovered the baggy, which contained nine rocks of suspected cocaine, weighing 1.3 grams.
- Wade was subsequently found and apprehended.
- Approximately 10 months prior to this incident, Wade had stated that he does not use cocaine.
- In October 1995 and again 10 months before the current charge, Wade had engaged in prior drug dealing activities, including selling cocaine to an informant and conducting a hand-to-hand transaction with another man, which led to prior convictions for possession with intent to deliver.
Procedural Posture:
- On February 10, 1997, the State charged Charles Wade in juvenile court with one count of possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver.
- The State filed a motion in limine seeking admission of two of Wade’s prior drug dealing acts under ER 404(b).
- The juvenile court granted the State’s motion in limine, ruling the prior acts admissible as evidence of intent, and later reaffirmed this ruling during trial despite Wade's renewed objection.
- On May 8, 1997, the juvenile court found Wade guilty of possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver.
- Wade appealed his juvenile conviction to the Washington Court of Appeals.
- The Washington Court of Appeals originally filed an opinion on October 16, 1998, affirming Wade's conviction.
- The Washington Supreme Court reversed the 1998 Court of Appeals decision and remanded the case back to the Court of Appeals due to an incomplete record.
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 ER 404(b) permit the admission of a juvenile defendant's prior drug dealing acts as evidence of intent to deliver in a current possession charge when the only connection between the acts is the defendant's propensity to commit similar crimes, and is mere possession of a small quantity of drugs with expert testimony sufficient to prove intent to deliver?
Opinions:
Majority - Hunt, J.
No, ER 404(b) does not permit the admission of a juvenile defendant's prior drug dealing acts to prove intent in a current possession charge when the sole connection between the acts relies on the defendant's propensity to commit such crimes, and mere possession of a small quantity of drugs with expert testimony is insufficient to prove intent to deliver. The court found that ER 404(b) explicitly forbids evidence of prior acts that tend to prove a defendant's propensity to commit a crime, even if offered to show intent, unless there is a logical theory other than propensity demonstrating how the prior acts connect to the intent for the charged offense. For intent, there must be factual similarities among the acts themselves that establish 'additional relevancy' beyond the mere fact that the same person committed them, thereby avoiding the forbidden inference of 'once a criminal always a criminal.' Here, Wade's prior acts involved observed trafficking or sales to an informant, which differed significantly from the current act of simply dropping drugs and fleeing from an officer. The trial court's reliance on the geographic location and time frame alone was insufficient to justify the admission of the prior acts under ER 404(b) because it still relied on a propensity inference. The court further concluded that the error was not harmless because the trial court explicitly stated it would have 'problems' finding guilt beyond a reasonable doubt for intent to deliver without the inadmissible prior acts. Regarding sufficiency of evidence, the court held that mere possession of drugs, even with expert testimony on quantity for distribution, is insufficient to establish intent to deliver without additional corroborating factors (e.g., drug paraphernalia, packaging materials, scales, large sums of cash, observed sales). In Wade's case, the 1.3 grams of cocaine, his statement of non-use, and his flight from the officer were not sufficient additional evidence to infer intent to deliver.
Analysis:
This case significantly reinforces the limitations on admitting prior bad acts under ER 404(b) to prove intent in Washington courts, emphasizing the strict prohibition against propensity evidence. It clarifies that a mere temporal or geographical proximity of prior similar acts is insufficient; instead, there must be specific factual similarities between the acts themselves that demonstrate a non-propensity link to intent. The ruling also sets a higher bar for proving intent to deliver in drug cases, requiring specific corroborating evidence beyond simple possession and expert opinion, thereby protecting defendants from conviction based on speculation or past behavior rather than current evidence. This precedent guides trial courts in their ER 404(b) analysis and police investigations in collecting sufficient evidence for drug delivery charges.
