Johnson, J. 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 *13 committing 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…
Read the full opinion (source) ↗
Lexace provides legal information, not legal advice, and no attorney–client relationship is created. Citation figures are counts of later citing opinions in our corpus and may be incomplete; always read and Shepardize the full opinion before relying on it.