This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Copelin (D) allegedly sold two rocks of crack cocaine to an undercover police officer. At trial, he claimed that the officer had confused him with Bailey, with whom he was playing dice at the time of the sale. During D's cross-examination, he claimed that he did not see any drugs at the time of the sale, and had never seen cocaine, except on television. Over D's objection, the prosecution was permitted to question D regarding three drug tests he had failed while on release awaiting trial. No limiting instruction regarding the proper use of the evidence was requested or given. D claims that the questioning should not have been permitted, although he admits that evidence of prior bad acts is admissible under certain circumstances.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.