The defendant was indicted for possession of heroin with intent to distribute it. He raised the defense of entrapment. The prosecution in its case in chief called an undercover drug agent who testified that, on July 1, he bought three ounces of heroin from the defendant. The defendant was the only witness for the defense. He admitted possession of heroin, but on the issue of his intent to distribute it, the defendant testified that he had no intention of selling heroin. After the defendant introduced evidence concerning the methods used by the agent to induce the defendant to sell him heroin, the prosecution called the agent in rebuttal. The agent testified that the defendant had also offered on April 1 to sell him heroin. The trial judge should rule that evidence:
A. Admissible to impeach the defendant’s credibility.
B. Admissible on the issue of the defendant’s propensity to sell heroin.
C. Inadmissible unless the defendant was convicted of a crime as the result of the April 1 incident.
D. Inadmissible because it is evidence of a specific act rather than evidence of opinion or reputation.
{ 13 comments… read them below or add one }
A. impeachment can be reached by Prior Inconsistent Statement, Bias of the witness, Prior Convictions of a crime, specific bad acts, opinion reputation truthfulnes, or senory (ex. vision problems). By Def saying he didn’t have the intent to distribute and the officer stating he did in prior statement, the witness can be impeached. The Defense lawyer can come back with, why didn’t you arrest him in April, etc Bolstering the Defendant.
Note B b/c Prppensity to commit crime, bad character cannot be use if meant to show that defendant acted in conformity with bad character, unless defendant introduces evidence of good character which from fact pattern, defense has not.
A. impeachment can be reached by Prior Inconsistent Statement, Bias of the witness, Prior Convictions of a crime, specific bad acts, opinion reputation truthfulnes, or senory (ex. vision problems). By Def saying he didn’t have the intent to distribute and the officer stating he did in prior statement, the witness can be impeached. The Defense lawyer can come back with, why didn’t you arrest him in April, etc Bolstering the Defendant.
Here’s the answer:
Answer B is correct. Ordinarily, evidence of similar crimes is not admissible against a defendant in a criminal case. However, it is admissible under Federal Rule 404(b) if relevant to prove a matter in issue other than the defendant’s character. By raising the defense of entrapment, the defendant put in issue his propensity to sell heroin. On that issue, the previous criminal activity is relevant, and the evidence is admissible. Substantial evidence that the defendant engaged in the earlier criminal act is all that is required; the defendant need not be convicted of a crime for this evidence to be admissible.
Answer A is incorrect. The evidence is admissible, but not for the purpose of impeaching the defendant’s credibility. If the defendant had been convicted as the result of his earlier conduct, offering to sell heroin, the record of that conviction would be admissible to impeach the defendant’s credibility if the court determined that its probative value outweighed its prejudicial effect. In this case, there is no conviction. While evidence of prior bad acts is admissible to impeach credibility through questions on cross-examination under Federal Rule 608, that rule is not applicable here because the evidence is being offered collaterally through an independent witness and because the conduct described does not involve dishonesty.
Answer C is incorrect. The evidence is admissible because it is independently relevant on an issue in the case, namely the defendant’s propensity to distribute drugs, since the defendant has raised the defense of entrapment. When evidence of prior criminal activity is admissible under Federal Rule 404(b), the criminal activity must be proven by substantial evidence, but need not be proven by evidence of conviction of a crime.
Answer D is incorrect. In this case, the evidence is admissible under Federal Rule 404(b) because it is relevant independent of its ability to prove the bad character of the defendant. It tends to prove the defendant’s tendency to sell drugs after he has put that tendency in issue by raising the defense of entrapment. When evidence is independently admissible under Federal Rule 404(b), it may be proven by specific instances of conduct and is not limited to proof by opinion or reputation testimony.
(B)
A – as already stated specific acts are permitted once character is in issue. But I chose A instead of B because character evidence protects against using prior acts to prove someone has the propensity to commit a crime.
B is correct. Defendant’s assertion of entrapment defense makes evidence of prior bad acts (e.g. April 1) admissible to show defendant’s propensity to commit bad acts (i.e. sell heroin). Defendant put his intent sufficiently in issue to warrant admission of the evidence.
The answer is B. When the defendant claims the affirmative defense of entrapment, he places his character in issue. The prosecution may rebut by specific instances of conduct disproving the affirmative defense. Here, the prosecution is rebutting defendant’s affirmative defense of entrapment with evidence that defendant was predisposed to selling heroin because he previously sold the drug. Therefore, the prosecution is able to introduce the April 1 drug sale into evidence.
I agree with gmevans. Once the defendant places his or her character in issue, the prosecution can take steps to rebut that evidence.
A is correct
The best answer is A. I reached this answer by process of elimination. I believe that this evidence would be admissible, therefore eliminating C and D. Answer C is an incorrect statement of law. Under the MIMIC exceptions, one can use prior bad acts that did not result in a conviction. Answer D is also wrong: it is over broad and MIMIC would also apply. As between B and A, I believe that one cannot introduce evidence that suggest’s one propensity to do crimes, so I pick A as the best answer.
I pick A b/c prior bad acts are fine to impeach credability. B surrounds bringing in propensity evidence, and I recall something about not being able to do that unless it’s a propensity for certain crimes….
I also picked B as the correct answer because of the entrapment defense.
The Answer is B. The defendant’s character is in issue since he has claimed the defense of entrapment regarding the intent to distribute heroin. Therefore the door has been opened for the prosecution to prove other similar incidences that specifically disprove the defendant’s entrapment affirmative defense.