I. relevance E. Defendant’sOtherCrimesforNon-CharacterPurpose.

Question 1

E. Defendant’sOtherCrimesforNon-CharacterPurpose.”

General rule

Answer 1

General rule: Other crimes or specific bad acts of defendant are not admissible during the prosecution’s case-in-chief if the only purpose is to suggest that because of defendant’s bad character he is more likely to have committed the crime currently charged.

Example: D is charged with robbing bank A. The fact that D robbed bank B six months later would be inadmissible character evidence.

Question 2

E. Defendant’sOtherCrimesforNon-CharacterPurpose.

exception

Answer 2

BUT, if defendant’s other crimes or bad acts show SOMETHING SPECIFIC ABOUT THE CRIME CHARGED—something more than mere bad character—such evidence may be ADMISSIBLE as evidence bearing on guilt.
Most common non-character purposes: “MIMIC”—
MOTIVE (revenge)
INTENT
MISTAKE OR ACCIDENT, ABSENCE OF
IDENTITY
COMMON SCHEME OR PLAN

Question 3

E. Defendant’sOtherCrimesforNon-CharacterPurpose.
HYPO 22. Defendant is charged with possession of narcotics with the intent to sell. He defends on the ground that he was merely a possessor and user—not a seller—of the drugs. The prosecution seeks to prove that Defendant sold drugs a year ago in the vicinity of the arrest in the current case. Admissible?

Answer 3

yes;
intent
because D.’s statement of mind shows his intent to sell; prior sale close in time

Question 4

E. Defendant’sOtherCrimesforNon-CharacterPurpose.
HYPO 23. Lizzie Borden is accused of intentionally killing her mother with an ax. Defense: accident. Prosecution seeks to show that Lizzie threw a knife at her mother during a family quarrel one week before the mother’s demise. The evidence:
(A) Is admissible because it shows Lizzie’s propensity for violence.
(B) Is admissible because it shows the ax incident was not an accident.

Answer 4

(B)

absence of mistake

Question 5

E. Defendant’sOtherCrimesforNon-CharacterPurpose.

Method of proof of MIMIC-purpose crimes:

Answer 5

by conviction, or
by evidence (witnesses, etc.) that proves the crime occurred: conditional relevancy standard—prosecution need only produce sufficient evidence from which a ***reasonable juror could conclude*** that defendant committed the other crime.

Upon defendant’s request, prosecution must give pretrial notice of intent to introduce MIMIC evidence. In all cases, court must also weigh probative value vs. prejudice and give limiting instructions if MIMIC evidence is admitted.
If relevant, MIMIC evidence can also be used in civil cases, such as tort actions for fraud or assault.

Question 6

E. Defendant’sOtherCrimesforNon-CharacterPurpose.

contesting the issue?

Answer 6

Q-TIP: Court must insure that defendant is actually contesting the issue to which MIMIC crime is addressed (e.g., identity, intent). If a MIMIC category is satisfied, prosecution may use other-crimes evidence as part of its case-in-chief; MIMIC evidence is not dependent on defendant’s introduction of favorable character evidence.