Evidence Learning Questions - Set 3 Flashcards
A defendant is charged with armed robbery. For which purpose is extrinsic evidence that he previously stole a gun inadmissible?
A
To show that the defendant stole the gun in preparation for the armed robbery.
B
To show that the defendant is violent and therefore criminally disposed.
C
To show that the defendant planned to commit the robbery.
D
To show that the defendant is the armed robber in question, where the same gun is linked to both instances.
B
Extrinsic evidence of the defendant’s other crimes or misconduct is inadmissible if such evidence is offered solely to show that the defendant is violent and therefore has a criminal disposition.
However, evidence of other crimes or misconduct is admissible if these acts are relevant to some issue other than the defendant’s character or disposition to commit the crime charged (e.g., to show motive, opportunity , intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident) whenever these issues are relevant. For example, evidence that the defendant previously stole a gun could be brought in to show that the defendant planned to commit the robbery, that the defendant had stolen the same gun that was used in the robbery, and that the defendant had stolen the gun in preparation for the armed robbery.
As a general rule, evidence of a prior bad act or crime is not admissible to prove:
A
Motive
B
Propensity to commit crime
C
Opportunity
D
Absence of mistake
B
Prior acts or crimes are generally not admissible to show criminal propensity (although there are limited exceptions in sexual assault or child molestation cases).
However, Federal Rule 404(b) goes on to say that such prior acts or crimes may be admissible for other purposes (e.g., to show motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident).
In order for prior misconduct to be admissible for some relevant purpose (motive, intent, etc.), there must be:
A
Proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the prior misconduct
B
Sufficient evidence to support a jury finding that the defendant committed the prior misconduct
C
Some evidence to indicate that the defendant committed the prior misconduct; no particular standard of proof need be met
D
Proof by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant committed the prior misconduct
B
Under Federal Rule 404(b), independently relevant uncharged misconduct by the defendant will be admissible, without a preliminary ruling, as long as there is sufficient evidence to support a jury finding that the defendant committed the prior act. Hence, “some evidence,” proof beyond a reasonable doubt, or proof by a preponderance of the evidence are incorrect. (The probative value of the evidence also must not be substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.)
Prior misconduct evidence is inadmissible if the danger of unfair prejudice __________ the probative value.
A
Slightly outweighs
B
Substantially outweighs
C
Is equal to
D
Is substantially outweighed by
B
Under Federal Rule 404(b), prior misconduct evidence is inadmissible if the danger of unfair prejudice substantially outweighs the probative value. The other statements of the standard are incorrect.
Additionally, independently relevant uncharged misconduct by the defendant will only be admissible, without a preliminary ruling, if there is sufficient evidence to support a jury finding that the defendant committed the prior act (i.e., the standard of Federal Rule 104).
A defendant is charged with beating a victim to death with a set of brass knuckles during the course of a fight in a tavern. The victim was found to have a pistol on his person at the time of the fight. During the course of the trial, the defendant took the stand in his own defense and testified that the victim threatened him with a gun and the defendant had hit the victim with the brass knuckles in self-defense. To rebut the defendant’s claim, the prosecution wishes to place the bartender on the stand, who will testify that two years prior to the attack on the victim, she had seen the defendant approach a customer in her tavern from behind, put on a pair of brass knuckles, and strike the customer a severe blow on the side of the face with a brass-knuckled fist. The prosecutor, in accordance with local court rules, has apprised the defense attorney of the general tenor of the bartender’s proposed testimony. As soon as the bartender is sworn in, the defense attorney raises an objection.
How should the court rule on the admissibility of the bartender’s testimony?
A Admissible, as substantive evidence that the defendant did not act in self-defense in beating the victim.
B Admissible, to attack the defendant’s credibility.
C Inadmissible, because prior bad acts cannot be admitted to prove the defendant’s propensity to commit the specific crime with which he is charged.
D Inadmissible, because the defendant has not put his character in issue in this case.
C
The bartender’s testimony is inadmissible because the defendant’s prior fight in the tavern cannot be admitted to prove his propensity to beat someone to death. The basic rule is that when a person is charged with one crime, extrinsic evidence of his other crimes or misconduct is inadmissible if such evidence is offered solely to establish a criminal disposition. [Fed. R. Evid. 404(b)] The danger is that the jury may convict because of past conduct rather than because of guilt of the offense charged. While evidence of other crimes is admissible if it is independently relevant to some other issue (e.g., motive, intent, or identity), the defendant’s prior fight appears to have no relevance other than as evidence of his violent disposition. It is therefore inadmissible. (A) is incorrect because it suggests that the bartender’s testimony should be admitted to show the defendant’s propensity for violence. As stated above, extrinsic evidence of his prior misconduct is inadmissible if offered solely to establish a criminal disposition. Evidence of specific acts of the person in question as demonstrating that person’s character is permitted only in the few instances when character is itself one of the ultimate issues in the case. [Fed. R. Evid. 405(b)] The defendant’s propensity for violence is not an ultimate issue in this case. (B) is incorrect because extrinsic evidence of the defendant’s previous bad acts cannot be used to impeach him. A specific act of misconduct must be probative of truthfulness (i.e., an act of deceit or lying) and can be elicited only on cross-examination of the witness. Extrinsic evidence is not permitted. Therefore, testimony concerning the defendant’s prior incident is not admissible for impeachment. (D) is incorrect because it is irrelevant. It is true that the defendant has not put his character in issue in this case simply by pleading self-defense. Even if he had, however, the prosecutor could not rebut by having a witness testify as to prior instances of misconduct; only reputation or opinion evidence would be admissible.
The complainant was robbed by a man wielding an unusual knife with a pearl-studded handle. The defendant was arrested and charged with armed robbery of the complainant. At trial the prosecution calls a witness to testify that, three days after the robbery of the complainant, she was robbed by the defendant with a knife that had a pearl-studded handle.
Should the court rule that the witness’s testimony is admissible?
A Yes, as showing habit.
B Yes, as establishing an identifying circumstance.
C No, because it is improper character evidence.
D No, because its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.
B
The court should admit the evidence for purposes of establishing identity. Other crimes and wrongs are generally not admissible to prove that a person acted in conformity with his bad character. However, they are sometimes admissible for other purposes, such as to establish the identity of the accused. Other crimes are admissible on identity when they are committed in a unique way that shows what amounts to a “signature” of the perpetrator. Given the highly unusual weapon in this case, the court should hold that the evidence is admissible to show that the defendant was the perpetrator. Because the evidence is relevant for a purpose other than conformity, (C) is wrong. Theoretically, even signature crimes can be excluded if the judge determines that the probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. However, a crime qualifying as a signature crime is highly probative and would rarely be excluded under that theory. Therefore, (D) is wrong. (A) is wrong. One other crime could not establish habit.
A plaintiff sued his neighbor over a 10-foot-high stockade fence that the neighbor was building adjacent to the plaintiff’s backyard. The local zoning ordinance permitted a fence of this height unless it was a “spite fence,” defined as a fence erected solely for the purpose of interfering with neighboring landowners’ use and enjoyment of their property. The plaintiff alleged that the neighbor was building the fence to block sunlight to the garden that the plaintiff had planted. The neighbor denied that she was building the fence for that purpose. The plaintiff wishes to introduce evidence that the neighbor had sprayed herbicide towards the garden previously.
Should the judge permit the plaintiff’s testimony?
A Yes, because the neighbor’s character is at issue in the case.
B Yes, because it pertains to the neighbor’s motivation in building the fence.
C No, because the plaintiff’s testimony is evidence of specific conduct, which is not admissible in this case because the neighbor’s character is not in issue.
D No, because character evidence generally is not admissible in a civil case.
B
The judge should permit the plaintiff’s testimony because evidence of specific acts of misconduct is admissible to show motive. Under Federal Rule 404(b), evidence of other acts may be admissible in a criminal or civil case if they are relevant to some issue other than character, such as motive. Here, whether the neighbor was motivated by an improper purpose in building the fence is the key issue in the lawsuit by the plaintiff. The neighbor’s prior misconduct in spraying herbicide toward the plaintiff’s garden is circumstantial evidence that her hostility toward the garden motivated her to build the fence. (A) is wrong because even though the neighbor’s motivation and intent are at issue in the case, her character is not. In the absence of character being directly in issue in the case, evidence of character to prove the conduct of a person in the litigated event is not admissible. (C) and (D) are wrong even though they correctly state general rules: evidence of specific acts of misconduct is generally inadmissible, and character evidence is generally inadmissible in a civil case. However, when the specific acts are being offered for a purpose other than to show bad character or conduct in conformity to character, they are admissible in both criminal and civil cases.
A defendant is being tried for the murder of a victim, which occurred during the burglary of the victim’s house. In its case-in-chief, the prosecution seeks to offer evidence that the defendant, who was arrested several days after the crime, had been caught with several grams of cocaine in his car.
This evidence will most likely be:
A Inadmissible, because the defendant has not offered evidence of good character.
B Inadmissible, because it has limited probative value and is unduly prejudicial.
C Admissible, because it tends to show what the defendant did with the money he stole.
D Admissible, because it tends to show that the defendant is capable of committing serious crimes.
B
The evidence will likely be inadmissible. Other crimes and wrongdoings of a defendant are sometimes admissible to prove motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plans, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake [Fed. R. Evid. 404(b)], provided, however, that the probative value of the evidence is not substantially outweighed by prejudice or other Rule 403 considerations. On these facts, the probative value of possession of cocaine seems very slight and is highly prejudicial. Therefore, the evidence will probably be inadmissible. (A) is wrong. Other crime evidence is sometimes admissible to show motive, opportunity, etc., even if the defendant does not place his character in issue. Also, if the defendant offers evidence of good character, the prosecutor cannot for that reason alone offer extrinsic evidence of specific crimes. (C) is wrong. The issue is whether the defendant murdered the victim during a burglary, not what he did with the money. It is true that the evidence tends to show that the defendant had money, but the probative value that he committed the crime charged would be very slight and clearly outweighed by prejudice. (D) is wrong. If the evidence were offered to prove that the defendant is capable of committing serious crimes, it would be inadmissible character evidence.
