Can prior bad acts identify a defendant without showing a common scheme? Salt Lake City v. Alires Explained

In Salt Lake City v. Alires, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether prior bad act evidence could be admitted for identification purposes without establishing a common plan or scheme, providing important guidance for practitioners handling cases involving Rule 404(b) evidence.

Background and Facts

Defendant Roger Alires was charged with telephone harassment after allegedly making threatening calls to his former girlfriend, Tiffany Brimhall. Earlier that evening, police had responded to Brimhall’s apartment where they found Alires banging on windows, demanding entry. Officers removed his belongings and told him to leave. About an hour later, Brimhall received threatening phone calls, which she reported to police. During one call that occurred while Officer Candland was present, Brimhall identified the caller as Alires. The caller made death threats and referenced the earlier police involvement.

Key Legal Issues

The court addressed three main issues: (1) whether evidence of Alires’s earlier disturbance could be admitted under Rule 404(b) for identification purposes without showing a common scheme; (2) whether admission of Brimhall’s excited utterances identifying the caller violated the Confrontation Clause when she didn’t testify; and (3) whether the threatening statements constituted inadmissible hearsay.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction on all issues. Regarding the prior bad act evidence, the court held that while common plans or schemes are often used to prove identity under Rule 404(b), they are not always required. The court found clear factual links between the incidents: temporal proximity (one hour apart), the caller’s references to police involvement, discussion of “their daughter,” and similar aggressive behavior toward the same victim. These connections created a sufficient basis for identification evidence rather than improper character evidence.

On the Confrontation Clause issue, the court followed federal precedent in White v. Illinois, holding that excited utterances do not require showing witness unavailability because they are “firmly rooted” exceptions with inherent reliability guarantees. The court rejected defendant’s argument that Utah courts had implicitly rejected this federal standard. Finally, the threatening statements were properly admitted as non-hearsay because they were offered to prove the statements were made, not their truth.

Practice Implications

This decision provides valuable guidance for practitioners handling Rule 404(b) evidence. Courts need not require a rigid common scheme test for identification purposes—clear factual connections between incidents may suffice. Temporal proximity, common victims, and references linking the incidents can establish the necessary foundation. The decision also confirms that Utah follows federal Confrontation Clause precedent regarding excited utterances, eliminating any uncertainty about divergent state standards.