State v. Mazowski

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• reasoning that motive was not a material issue in the case and holding that establishing motive did not justify \admitting such tangentially relevant but overwhelmingly prejudicial evidence\
• rejecting drug addiction as evidence of motive, opportunity, plan under Rule 404(b) and explaining that drug addiction is a “disposition” and prohibited as propensity
• rejecting State’s assertion that “[b]ecause defendant is a drug addict, ... he is constantly in need of money, he cannot hold onto money, and thus he has a ‘motive’ to commit crimes”
• disallowing such an \undifferentiated\ motive to steal in a robbery case as a basis for the State to admit Rule 404(b) evidence of a defendant's past drug use and addiction
• disallowing such an \undifferentiated\ motive to steal in a robbery case as a basis for the State to admit Rule 404(b) evidence of a defendant's past drug use and addiction
• evidence that the defendant was a drug addict was not admissible to show he had a motive to commit crimes

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).