State v. Marcello E. — dissenting

Summary

The dissent assumes that admitting the two prior misconduct incidents was an abuse of discretion but concludes that the defendant failed to show that the nonconstitutional evidentiary error substantially affected the verdict. It emphasizes the victim's unequivocal identification, corroborating testimony, the weakness of the alibi, the limited presentation of the misconduct evidence, and the trial court's limiting instructions. The dissent therefore would not overturn the conviction. Chief Justice Mullins, joined by Justice Dannehy, dissented from the majority's conclusion that the error was harmful.