Character Evidence Flashcards
Are prior bad acts or convictions admissible to prove something a trial?
Extraneous Acts are NOT admissible to show character conformity.
However, such acts may be admissible to:
1) prove some other fact such as identity, motive, plan;
2) rebut defensive theory;
3) who context in which charged crime took place
To prove that the burns to the children resulted from Wilma’s recklessness (which is an element of the charged offenses) and not as a result of a mere accident or mistake, Prosecutor calls the Director of Child Protective Services, Mr. Kidd, as a witness. Mr. Kidd testifies that Wilma’s two seven year old sons were placed in foster care a year ago after she left them alone at home without food for three weeks. You object to this testimony on the ground that Wilma’s abandonment of her sons did no result in a criminal conviction. How should the Court rule on you objection.
The Court should sustain my objection. A prior uncharged bad act of the defendant is admissible to prove the absence of mistake or accident, however it is only admissible when a defendant raises that defense and claims she lacks the mens rea because of mistake or accident.
Prosecutor calls as his next witness Celia Carr. Prior to trial you learned that Ms. Carr’s only criminal conviction is a 2011 felony conviction for theft. You also learned that she was sentenced to probation and that she satisfactorily completed her probation in 2013. When you begin to cross-examine Ms. Carr about her conviction and probation, Prosecutor objects, and the Court sustains the objection. Is the Court’s ruling correct? Explain your answer.
Yes, while a prior felony conviction may be used to impeach a testifying witness, under the Texas Rules of Evidence a prior conviction may not be used to impeach if it was the subject of a satisfactory completion of probation.
