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… read them below or add one }
Answer D is correct. Evidence is admissible under Federal Rule 404(b) to prove motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident. However, it must be shown that the prior acts were close enough in time to be connected with the crime charged and probative on one of those issues. Because the hot dog incident took place thirty minutes earlier, concerned a petty theft-as opposed to a fight-and did not appear to involve the victim, it is not relevant to prove any of the elements which can be proven under Federal Rule 404(b) and could only be relevant to proving the defendant’s bad character. For that purpose it is inadmissible.
Answer A is incorrect. Evidence of propensity to commit unlawful acts is evidence of character. The prosecution can only introduce character evidence of a criminal defendant under Federal Rule 404(a) after the defense has “opened the door” by introducing evidence of the defendant’s good character. In this question, the defendant has not opened the door and therefore the prosecution cannot introduce character evidence. Moreover, if character evidence could be introduced, it could only be in the form of reputation or opinion evidence, not by evidence of specific instances of conduct.
Answer B is incorrect. Evidence of prior bad acts is admissible under Federal Rule 404(b) to prove motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident. However, it must be shown that the prior acts were close enough in time to be connected with the crime charged and probative on one of those issues. Because the hot dog incident took place thirty minutes earlier, concerned a petty theft-as opposed to a fight-and did not appear to involve the victim, it is not very probative on the motive or intent relating to the assault charge, and thus should not be allowed.
Answer C is incorrect. If evidence of a specific instance of conduct is admissible to prove an element of a criminal offense, such as identity under Federal Rule 404(b), there need not be evidence of an arrest or conviction, just substantial evidence that the offense was committed. A conviction is only necessary when impeaching a witness’s truth and veracity by showing prior crimes.
D is the best choice. Hi charachter for truthfulness is not at issue so the fact that he did not pay for hot dog would be irrelevant unless his character was attacked.
Good luck to everyone of you. I hope we don’t meet here again
D as in done!
D is my best guess.
C is tempting, but def is not before the court on the theft charge. Moreover, no MIMIC exception applies because the incidents are completed unrelated.
answer D – Accused in criminal case- generally only accused can initiate
• The prosecution cannot initiate evidence of bad character of the D merely to show that she is more likely to have committed the crime.
PLI – evidence of a defendant’s bad character cannot be introduced by the prosecution. The Federal Rules of Evidence, 404 (b), does allow for wrongful acts and past crimes to be admitted into evidence as circumstantial proof of an element of a crime. However, in a trial, the judge must carefully consider if the risk of undue prejudice substantially outweighs the value of the past crimes as evidence.
o
• Prosecution may introduce evidence of prior misconduct for reasons other than propensity to commit the crime.
• The accused, however, may introduce evidence of here good character to show her innocence of the alleged crime.
I believe the answer is D. The stealing of a hot dog has no relevance to the assault charge and is inadmissible as such. Good luck to all next week!
D,
– No propensity evidence, the unpaying for evidence is being offerred to show the other crime; it does not come under 404.b motive, plan, mistake (absense if); common scheme, intent or plan.
c is wrong; similar acts do not need convictions, only 404 b relevancy.
Im going with C.
B is the best answer. This is admissible because the prior incident was so close in time and place and may be admitted under FRE 404(b).
D. Proof of unlawful acts are not allowed on the issue of the defendant’s guilt, but they are allowed on the issue of the defendant’s truthfulness or veracity.
I’ll take B. FRE 404(b). Also, the testimony will illuminate the chronology of events leading to the assault.
Good luck to all on the exam and in all endeavors!