State v. Painter

Admission of evidence that is qualitatively different than the evidence the jury was required to hear on a direct issue of the case causes harmful error.

Defendant appealed his conviction of assault in the second degree. Defendant assigned error to the admission of incriminating statements. Defendant argued that the information within the statements was inadmissible because it did not pertain to a non-character purpose and thus caused harmful error requiring reversal. The State countered the statements at least slightly increased the probability that Defendant acted with the requisite mens rea. The State further argued that even if there was error, it was harmless because the statements conformed to Defendant's position of Defendant's contemporaneous mental state and the subsequent credibility. The Court of Appeals held that admission of the statements was in error. Subsequently, the Court ruled that statements were qualitatively different in content than the Defendant had argued and presented to the jury on the main issue in the case, thus causing prejudicial error. Reversed and remanded.