39.2.1    Bifurcation As Strategy For Limiting Prejudicial Impact Of Prior Conviction: General Principles

PRACTICE NOTE: Proceedings may be bifurcated in cases where prior convictions serve to enhance a present conviction in recognition that evidence of prior crimes is generally inadmissible in criminal cases, because it has no tendency to establish the guilt or innocence of the accused but, if effective at all, can serve only to prejudice or mislead or excite the minds and inflame the passions of the jury. (See Lawrence v. State (IN 1972) 286 NE2d 830, 833-36 [bifurcation required for habitual criminal enhancement].) For example, the bifurcated procedure has been found to be necessary for the enhancement of second convictions of marijuana or hashish offenses (see Johnson v. State (IN 1989) 544 NE2d 164, 168), and drunk driving. (See NCJIC 89.2.6 [Drunk Driving: Prior Conviction Stipulation/Bifurcation].) The rationale of these cases obviously stems from a recognition that evidence of repeated commission of similar crimes is not sufficient to establish a common scheme or plan. (Johnson v. State, 544 NE2d at 168; see also Benton v. State (AR 1993) 850 SW2d 36, 37 [purpose of bifurcation is to protect defendant from undue prejudice by withholding proof of prior convictions until jury has found him guilty].)

   39.2.4    Repeat Offender (Recidivist) Priors: Bifurcation Or Stipulation

PRACTICE NOTE:  Just as a predicate prior conviction for ex-felon status may be admitted or bifurcated, so too should the accused be able to admit or bifurcate alleged repeat offender priors.  (See e.g., NCJIC 89.2.6 [Drunk Driving: Prior Conviction Stipulation/Bifurcation].)