2005
United
States v. Johnson,
62 M.J. 31 (the mere lack of money, without more, as proof of motive,
has
little tendency to prove that a person committed a crime; the problem with poverty evidence without more to
show
motive is not just that it is unfair to poor people, but that it does
not prove
much, because almost everyone, poor or not, has a motive to get more
money; and
most people, rich or poor, do not steal to get it; in short, wherever
one falls
on the financial spectrum, there is a critical distinction between an
interest
in having more money and an inclination to engage in wrongdoing to meet
that
interest; thus, a mere interest, unconnected with inclination,
desperation, or
other evidence that the person was likely to commit the crime does not
add
much, in most cases, to the probability that the defendant committed a
crime;
whatever marginal probative value impecuniosity alone may possess,
there is too
great a risk of raising the impermissible inference that an accused
committed
the offense because of his modest financial means, a description that
might
apply to many members of the armed forces, as well as the public at
large).
(where the moving party can
demonstrate a
specific relevant link to the offense in question, financial evidence
may be
relevant to establish motive; thus, courts have permitted financial
status
evidence in cases where the evidence in question reflects imminent and
dire
financial need, unexplained wealth, or that an accused is living beyond
his
means).
(the
military
judge abused his discretion in admitting the accused’s bank records at
trial
for the purpose of showing a motive to transport and distribute drugs;
the bank
records did not do more than establish a poor financial position; they
did not
show a sudden change in financial circumstance, an imminent and
extraordinary
financial burden, or an accused living beyond his means;
admission of
these records in the absence of other relevant circumstances to show
motive
tended to raise the very presumption the law seeks to preclude, namely,
that
those who are not well-off cannot live within a budget and that they
crave
money and will commit crime to obtain it; the bank records were
negligibly
relevant, if at all, and the probative value was outweighed by the
danger of unfair
prejudice).
1999