Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Benchmarks: Rap videos can’t be used against accused pimp

By: Pat Murphy, BridgeTower Media Newswires//September 5, 2012//

Benchmarks: Rap videos can’t be used against accused pimp

By: Pat Murphy, BridgeTower Media Newswires//September 5, 2012//

Listen to this article

If a pimp boasts about his activities in rap videos, it seems more than fair that prosecutors be allowed to use his musical performances against him to obtain a conviction.

However, the Oregon Court of Appeals decided Aug. 29 that the unforgettable “Pimp’n (All I Know)” could not be shown to a jury deciding the fate of a wannabe rapper accused of promoting prostitution.

“[W]e conclude that, even if the videos qualify as ‘[e]vidence of other crimes, wrongs or acts’ …, the state has not established that they are relevant to prove defendant’s intent,” wrote Chief Judge Rick Haselton in State v. McIntyre.

The state of Oregon charged Lashawn Anthony McIntyre Jr. with promoting prostitution in Portland. At trial, the state sought to introduce as evidence “”Turn This Up”” and “”Pimp’n (All I Know),”” two rap videos that Portland detectives had found on YouTube. The videos featured the talents of none other than Lashawn Anthony McIntyre Jr.

To give you a taste, in “”Turn This Up,”” McIntyre shows up in front of a car as the name “”Mac Shawn”” appears on the screen. According to detectives, Mac Shawn is the alleged pimp’s alias. Some of the more memorable lyrics from the rapper include:

  • “I’m a Vegas pimp, and a Portland Mac.”
  • “Pimping ‘hos and taxin’ traps.”
  • “Taking bitches across the map.”
  • “Break it down like this baby girl let’s go.”
  • “You can get money if you f**k them with a [unintelligible].”
  • “We’ll hit a couple cities, let your ass get dough.”
  • “A certified pimp, a bona fide ho.”
  • “Get money all on the row.”

The trial court excluded both rap videos, reasoning that their probative value was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice and their potential to distract the jury.

The state appealed the trial court’s pretrial order, bringing the issue to the Oregon Court of Appeals.

The appellate court upheld the exclusion of the videos, concluding that they failed to meet the state’s standard for the admission of evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts when such evidence is proffered as proof of intent.

Specifically, the court concluded that the videos were inadmissible because they failed to show prior conduct that was sufficiently the same or similar to the charged act of promoting prostitution:

[D]efendant appeared in two rap videos with lyrics extolling the prostitution trade in general terms. In one of those videos, defendant makes three general statements concerning the reasons for engaging in the prostitution trade (i.e., to make money) and a tactic that pimps use (i.e., stealing prostitutes from each other). However, even accepting the state’s contention that defendant’s appearance in the videos and his three specific statements are an acknowledgment of defendant’s prior involvement in the prostitution trade, the record is devoid of any specificity concerning that involvement. For that reason, any similarities (and differences) between the charged act and defendant’s prior involvement cannot be evaluated.

The court seems to be cutting an awfully fine line here. It’s hard to imagine clearer evidence of McIntyre’s intent to promote prostitution than these rap videos with their graphic lyrics extolling the prostitution trade. The state is right to cry foul in their exclusion, and hopefully the Oregon Supreme Court will right this wrong.

Polls

Should Steven Avery be granted a new evidentiary hearing?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests