Page:United States Reports 502 OCT. TERM 1991.pdf/233

 502us1$$7H 08-21-96 15:22:22 PAGES OPINPGT

Cite as: 502 U. S. 62 (1991)

75

Opinion of O’Connor, J.

pure and simple. Boyde v. California, supra, at 380. It seems far more likely that the jury understood the instruction, supra, at 71, to mean that if it found a “clear connection” between the prior injuries and the instant injuries, and if it found that McGuire had committed the prior injuries, then it could use that fact in determining that McGuire committed the crime charged. The use of the evidence of prior offenses permitted by this instruction was therefore parallel to the familiar use of evidence of prior acts for the purpose of showing intent, identity, motive, or plan. See, e. g., Fed. Rule Evid. 404(b). Furthermore, the trial court guarded against possible misuse of the instruction by specifically advising the jury that the “[prior injury] evidence, if believed, was not received, and may not be considered by you[,] to prove that [McGuire] is a person of bad character or that he has a disposition to commit crimes.” See n. 1, supra. Especially in light of this limiting provision, we reject McGuire’s claim that the instruction should be viewed as a propensity instruction.5 We therefore hold that neither the introduction of the challenged evidence, nor the jury instruction as to its use, “so infused the trial with unfairness as to deny due process of law.” Lisenba v. California, 314 U. S. 219, 228 (1941); see also Donnelly v. DeChristoforo, 416 U. S., at 643. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is therefore Reversed. Justice Thomas took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. Justice O’Connor, with whom Justice Stevens joins, concurring in part and dissenting in part. I agree with the Court that the evidence of battered child syndrome was relevant. The State had to prove that Mark 5

Because we need not reach the issue, we express no opinion on whether a state law would violate the Due Process Clause if it permitted the use of “prior crimes” evidence to show propensity to commit a charged crime.