State v. DeVincentis

This case involves the issue of whether admitting evidence of prior misconduct as a common scheme or plan under Evidence Rule (ER) 404(b) requires that the evidence show a unique or atypical method of *13committing the crime, or merely show sufficient similarities to suggest a common scheme or plan. In a prior case, Division Two of the Court of Appeals held that the common scheme or plan exception requires the similarities to be atypical or unique to the way the crime is usually committed. In the present case, Division One disagreed and held that the exception requires only substantial…