State v. Marcello E.

Summary

The court held that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting two prior assaults against the victim to prove the defendant's specific intent, because the evidence's slight probative value was outweighed by its prejudicial tendency to suggest identity and propensity. The error was harmful because identity was the central disputed issue, the remaining identification evidence was equivocal, the misconduct evidence resurfaced throughout trial, and limiting instructions did not cure the prejudice. The judgment was reversed and the case remanded for a new trial. Mullins, C. J., joined by Dannehy, J., dissenting, would have found the error harmless because the state's identification evidence was strong and the prior-misconduct evidence was brief and limited.