Allen v. State

Summary

The court affirmed Allen’s convictions, holding that the circuit court properly excluded testimony about the State’s eyewitness’s alleged later bad acts. The testimony was not independently relevant to a material issue, did not establish a sufficiently distinctive modus operandi, and could not be used to show violent character because the acts were neither directed at Allen nor known to him. The court also concluded that the testimony could not be introduced as extrinsic impeachment evidence concerning specific conduct.