Jurors won't be hearing man's criminal record

The judge says the man's history is not relevant to the current charges.
BEDFORD, Pa. (AP) -- A man accused of kidnapping a woman as her young son watched through a window and then killing her won a court decision that will keep a jury from hearing about his prior criminal record.
Joseph Clark, 45, of Everett, is charged with kidnapping and murdering Holly Notestine of Monroe Township. Authorities said Clark abducted the 25-year-old mother of two April 30, 2000, and killed her. The woman's son, then 4, told police he had watched through a window as his mother argued with a man he didn't know and then was forced into a light gray car.
In a 19-page decision, Judge Daniel Howsare said Clark's past criminal activity failed to show a common scheme, plan or design, did not reveal similarities showing the same person committed the current offense or did not show malice, motive or intent to kill Notestine.
Findings
Notestine's skeletal remains and a small pair of boots were found in March 2004 by loggers patching holes in a hunting road about four miles from her home and about 90 miles southeast of Pittsburgh. Forensic testing, that took nearly a year to complete, determined Notestine died of multiple stabbings and was beaten around the head.
Clark's car was found burning six hours after Notestine disappeared, and a knife found in the vehicle was consistent with the stab markings found on her remains, police said.
Bedford County District Attorney William Higgins wanted to tell jurors that Clark's reported crimes showed a pattern of attacks against women.
Clark was placed on probation in 1983 in Dade County, Fla., for exposing himself to a woman, according to prosecutors and court records. Four years later, he spent three years in a Georgia jail for aggravated assault involving a woman. In 1994, Clark was sentenced to 12 months in jail in Fairfax County, Va., for sexual battery.
Higgins said he will appeal Judge Howsare's ruling to the state Superior Court.
Clark's attorney, Thomas Crawford, said he wasn't surprised by the judge's ruling.
"I think the judge's ruling was apparent because there is no way that stuff would have been allowed in," Crawford said. "None of the prior acts have any similarities to this case in any shape or form."
Copyright 2005 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.