Thank you to all who have participated in the question of the day posting, and good luck to all who are sitting for a February exam. Question of the day will be back in June to prepare for the July exam. So, we’ll end here with an ever-popular evidence question:
The defendant was charged with the crime of assaulting the victim. While the defendant admitted striking the victim, he claimed to have acted in self-defense when he was attacked by the victim, who was drunk and belligerent after a football game.
As a part of the prosecution’s case in chief, the state’s attorney sought to introduce testimony that, 30 minutes prior to the altercation with the victim, the defendant had ordered a hot dog at a concession stand and had run into the crowd without paying for it.
The trial judge should rule this testimony:
A. Admissible, because it tends to show the defendant’s propensity to commit unlawful acts.
B. Admissible, because the prior incident was so close in time and place to the act for which the defendant was charged as to be relevant to the defendant’s motive and intent in striking the victim.
C. Inadmissible, because it is irrelevant unless there was a showing that the defendant had been charged with a crime arising out of the prior incident.
D. Inadmissible, because proof of such unlawful acts is not allowed on the issue of the defendant’s guilt of the assault charged.
{ 12 comments }
