Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Johnson v. United States

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Decided October 17, 1996No. 91-CF-5Published

1ConcurrenceKing, Associate Judge

I join the opinion of the court but write separately to express the view that because we are today adopting the balancing test of the Federal Rules of Evidence, Fed.R.Evid. 403, for so-called “other crimes” evidence, we should also adopt, in its entirety, Fed.R.Evid. 404(b), the underlying rule governing the *1106admissibility of that evidence. See Drew v. United States, 118 U.S.App. D.C. 11, 331 F.2d 85 (1964). Doing so would be consistent with our past practice when we have adopted specific provisions of the Federal Rules of Evidence.1

Rule 404(b) provides:(b) Other crimes, wrongs, or acts.…

2Cases cited37 opinions

  1. Huddleston v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
  2. Nathan L. Drew v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1964
  3. State v. CofieldSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1992
  4. State v. BroomOhio Supreme Court · 1988
  5. State v. McGinnisWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1994

32 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API