Other Acts Flashcards
404
(A)(1) general ban on character propensity reasoning.
2(a) A D may offer evidence of the D’s pertinent trait and DA may rebut that E;
(b) subject to rule 412, a D may offer evidence of the Vs pertinent trait and then DA may rebut on Vs character OR offer evidence of same trait as the D
(c) homicide case, the DA may offer evidence of the alleged Vs trait or peacefulness to rebut evidence that the V was the frst aggressor.
(3) E of Ws character admissible under 607-609
(B)(2) admissible for other purposes, such as motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan knowledge, identity, lack of mistake, lack of accident
404b
character evidence for other purposes
People v. Zackowitz: murder case, shot the V after insults in a fight
DA tries to prove intent with pistols and tear gas in D apartment
Common law rule: makes D have to defend their whole life and not just this charge
admissible to show motive, intent, identity, common plan, absence of mistake, ext because doesnt implicate the same issues as general propensity- less prejudice
hacker ordered computers to a high school and a warehouse in Las Vegas. entered a guilty plea for Las Vegas. E: in trial for order to high school, DA wants to intorduce Las Vegas order.
Purpose: shows D is a person with the specialized knowledge to be able to do this crime
applied: balancing PV and prejudice, seems prejudice is high, so only if probative value high as well will balance favor admission. here, probative value is high because only a few could have the knowledge to do this.
offer limiting instruction
US v. Crowder
D charged with drug deal
E: DA wants to show prior conviction for a drug deal.
DA nonpropensity purpose is allegedly kowledge of methodology of drug trade.
No- only admissible if a limited number of people are within the realm of knowledge
people v. Dailey
Man charged with murder of W, body disappeared into ocean
prosecution offered testimony of D’s ex gf “D could get rid of a body”
and other threats of violence
result: other threats: pure propensity use = out by 404a
how to get rid of body statement: Probative value is weak for knowledge and prejudice high, so probably out
US v. Peltier
D charged with murder of FBI agents
E: prior to events, D had a warrant for attempted murder in WI
DA purpose? D had motive to kill when confronted to avoid capture
To decide whether to admit for that purpose, balance probative value with prejudice under 403.
Held: WI warrant is too central to the case to exclude. Even with its high prejudice, high probative value means admit.
US v. Trenkler
Charged with Rosalindale bombing from October 1991, other incident in quincy in 1986.
DA: valid non-propensity purpose is to show identity for 1991 bombing
what is close enough? exact match is not necessary, must be suffiently idiosyncratic
no need for exact relica, must show highly distinctive quality.
Held: quincy bomb is admissible to show identity.
similar characteristics of the bomb construction
similar instances of crime (bomb, for friend, under vehicle)
together is enough to show identity
note: only works when identity is at issue. Also, must tie D to other incident
not enough: prior robbery with knife, exchange of drugs before sale, money in handshake
dissimilarities goes against admissibility
