What standard governs appellate review of other crimes evidence? State v. Decorso Explained

In State v. Decorso, the Utah Supreme Court significantly clarified the law governing admission of other crimes evidence under Rule 404(b), establishing important precedent for appellate practitioners challenging evidentiary rulings.

Background and Facts

Michael Decorso was convicted of aggravated murder for killing Margaret Martinez, a Payless Shoesource clerk, during a February 1994 robbery in West Jordan. The prosecution sought to prove identity by introducing evidence of Decorso’s attempted robbery at another Payless store in Draper seven months later. The crimes shared striking similarities: both occurred after closing hours with the perpetrator posing as a customer, both involved female Payless clerks, and Decorso’s fingerprints were found at both locations.

Key Legal Issues

The central issue was whether the trial court properly admitted the Draper Payless evidence under Rule 404(b). Decorso also challenged the court’s denial of his mistrial motion, admission of gruesome evidence, suppression rulings on search warrants, and jailhouse informant testimony.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court fundamentally revised the analytical framework for Rule 404(b) evidence. Following the 1998 amendment to Rule 404(b), the court abandoned the “very limited deference” standard from State v. Doporto in favor of abuse of discretion review. The court established a three-part test: (1) the evidence must be offered for a proper noncharacter purpose, (2) it must meet Rule 402 relevance requirements, and (3) it must satisfy Rule 403 balancing without any presumption against admissibility.

Applying this framework, the court found the Draper evidence was properly admitted to establish identity through signature-like crimes. The court also defined factors for determining whether photographs are “gruesome” under Rule 403, considering color versus black-and-white, enlargement, timing, and compositional elements.

Practice Implications

This decision provides greater deference to trial courts’ evidentiary rulings, making successful appeals more challenging. Practitioners should focus on demonstrating clear abuse of discretion rather than arguing de novo review. The court’s emphasis on the marshaling requirement also warns that selective citation of favorable evidence will result in automatic rejection of challenges. For trial attorneys, the decision clarifies that other crimes evidence lacks any presumption against admissibility when offered for proper purposes.