PEOPLE v. EARLE PART IV
Trial court abused its discretion by denying defendant's motion to sever trial on charges of misdemeanor indecent exposure and felony sexual assault where charges arose from entirely distinct and dissimilar incidents with no historical connection to each other and no overlap in evidence or witnesses, and where proof of defendant's guilt of misdemeanor charge was strong but felony case was comparatively weak, being based on credibility of victim's identification of defendant and his vehicle. Indecent exposure was not relevant to show intent required for assault charge and could not be admitted for that purpose. Defendant's commission of an indecent exposure also could not show without more a motive to commit rape. Evidence of defendant's indecent exposure did not have any tendency to show that defendant had a propensity or predisposition to commit sexual assault without further evidentiary foundation by expert testimony. In context of a sexual assault case, charge of indecent exposure had potential to inflame jury. Such a repellant sexual aberration would naturally incline jury to view defendant as a "freak," which would reduce jurors' ability to view in an unbiased manner the defense evidence raising doubts about victim's identification of defendant and his truck. Where prosecutor urged jurors to convict defendant of assault based on his commission of indecent exposure and relied on spurious legal theories to place the indecent exposure offense before jury as evidence of assault, misdemeanor played a central role in securing defendant's felony conviction, and trial was so grossly unfair as to deny defendant's right to due process.
Comments on PEOPLE v. EARLE PART IV