Home      Login

Abstract: 

Our regular review of appellate court rulings surveys five appellate decisions involving the difficult balance between excluding unfair propensity evidence and admitting prior acts that legitimately explain domestic violence. In Kansas, the state supreme court upheld a murder conviction, ruling that evidence of prior abuse and threats was admissible to prove motive, intent, premeditation, and the nature of the relationship (State v. Bey, 585 P.3d 911 (Kan. 2026)). In Mississippi, the court of appeals reversed an aggravated domestic violence conviction after finding that unrelated prior bad acts improperly suggested the defendant's violent character and prejudiced the jury (Muhammad v. State, 2026 WL 875599 (Miss. Ct. App. 2026)). In Illinois, the state supreme court held that evidence of a victim's violent conduct occurring after the charged offense was inadmissible, while concluding that exclusion of the defendant's prior acquittal was harmless error because his self-defense claim was implausible (People v. Heintz, 2026 IL 131340). In Nebraska, the supreme court affirmed admission of prior uncharged domestic violence because it was inextricably intertwined with the charged offenses and necessary to provide context for the escalating abuse (State v. Logan, 320 Neb. 554 (Neb. 2025)). Finally, the Georgia Supreme Court reversed a murder conviction after holding that prior abuse against a different partner was improperly used as propensity evidence disguised as proof of motive (Harris v. State, 913 S.E.2d 570 (Ga. 2025)). Together, these decisions illustrate the continuing struggle of courts to define the proper role of prior domestic violence evidence in criminal prosecutions.

Keywords: Prior Bad Acts; Propensity Evidence; Domestic Violence; Rules of Evidence; Self-Defense; Appellate Decisions

Affiliations:  1: Contributing Editor; 2: Associate Editor.