Jul
25
In a criminal prosecution for a robbery which took place on June 1, the defendant took the stand and denied that he had committed the crime. On cross-examination, the defendant was asked if he had assaulted a police officer on December 1.
Upon objection, the trial judge should rule the question:
A. Inadmissible, because prior bad acts can only be proven by extrinsic evidence.
B. Inadmissible, because it is not relevant on the issue of the defendant’s credibility.
C. Admissible, because the prosecution may inquire into specific instances of conduct on cross-examination.
D. Admissible, because it lays the foundation which is necessary before the act may be proven by extrinsic evidence.
{ 8 comments… read them below or add one }
b–not relevant to issue of dishonesty for purposes of impeachment. Therefore, not relevant to the issue of defendant’s credibility. A is incorrect because Dina Allan explained the reason. C and D are incorrect, and Dina Allan also offered the explanation for these answers being incorrect.
Answer B is correct. The evidence offered in this case is inadmissible because it asks questions about specific instances of conduct. Inquiry into such specific instances is not admissible to show the criminal character of the defendant, and can be used to impeach the credibility of a criminal defendant who takes the stand only if the conduct involves dishonesty, where it would then be admissible under Federal Rule 608. An assault on a police officer is not related to credibility and therefore this evidence is inadmissible for the reason stated.
Answer A is incorrect. It correctly states that the evidence is inadmissible, because inquiry into specific instances of conduct in areas that do not involve dishonesty is generally improper. However, it incorrectly states the appropriate rule with regard to prior bad acts. Prior bad acts cannot be proven by extrinsic evidence. They can only be inquired about on cross-examination when the act involves dishonesty, for the purpose of impeaching the credibility of the witness under Federal Rule 608.
Answer C is incorrect. The evidence is inadmissible because it inquires into a specific instance of conduct which is unrelated to the credibility of the witness. The choice correctly states that the prosecution can ask about specific instances of conduct on cross-examination, but omits the limitation that the conduct must relate to dishonesty, and is therefore a wrong answer choice.
Answer D is incorrect. The evidence is inadmissible because the question inquires into specific instances of conduct which are unrelated to the honesty of the witness. It does not provide the foundation for any kind of admissible evidence. Extrinsic evidence of the specific instance of conduct is inadmissible under all circumstances.
answer C
C
B. Can’t use character evidence to prove conduct in conformity therewith (unless he introduces good character evidence first). And in criminal cases, specific acts are only used in cross-examination of defendant’s “good character” witnesses. A is wrong because prior bad acts may not be proven by extrinsic evidence–they can only be used to question the witness.
b
answer c
C