The Challenge

Mr. Lites was convicted by a jury of burglary, attempted rape, and related offenses. The prosecution's case relied heavily on the introduction of evidence concerning a prior, 20-year-old burglary conviction, arguing it demonstrated a "common scheme or plan."

The Legal Strategy

Attorney Jerome Brown argued that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting this evidence. The defense contended that the similarities between the two cases were generic and insufficient to prove a signature modus operandi. Furthermore, the prejudicial impact of introducing a prior conviction far outweighed its probative value, effectively stripping Mr. Lites of his right to a fair trial based solely on the facts of the current case.

The Outcome

The Superior Court agreed with the defense. In its memorandum opinion, the Court found that the trial court erred in admitting the prior bad acts evidence. The Court noted that the "common scheme" exception to the rule against hearsay is narrow and requires a high degree of similarity, which was absent here. Consequently, the conviction was vacated, and the case was remanded for a new trial.