Other Acts

Question 1

404

Answer 1

(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

Question 2

404b

Answer 2

character evidence for other purposes

Question 3

People v. Zackowitz: murder case, shot the V after insults in a fight

Answer 3

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

Question 4

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.

Answer 4

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

Question 5

US v. Crowder

Answer 5

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

Question 6

people v. Dailey
Man charged with murder of W, body disappeared into ocean

Answer 6

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

Question 7

US v. Peltier
D charged with murder of FBI agents
E: prior to events, D had a warrant for attempted murder in WI

Answer 7

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.

Question 8

US v. Trenkler
Charged with Rosalindale bombing from October 1991, other incident in quincy in 1986.

Answer 8

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

Question 9

US v. Stevens
Robbery of 2 ppl at military base on the same day.
2 Vs ID the D in a lineup
E: D introduces similar robbery, which happened 3 days later

Answer 9

V in incident 2 did not ID D
D/C introduced the E to show reasonable doubt
for reverse 404b, the danger of unfair prejudice is only undue delay, confusion, ect
held: TC should have admited this as probative value is hight

Question 10

Res Gestae
United states v. DeGeorge

Answer 10

D contracts for boats, then sells in a series of transactions. on first sail, boat sinks
charges: wire and mail fraud and prejury
E: DA offers D’s 3 other boat losses with insurance payouts
TC: admitted the boat losses and the fact that they were insured but not the pay out
held: admissible as Res Gestate for narrative integrity purposes: probative value in showing why DeGeorge couldnt take out a policy in own name

Question 11

Res Gestae

Answer 11

1. constitutes part of the charged transaction
2. narrative integrity: part of a coherent story

Question 12

US v. Hite
D charged with possession of pitsol with no serial number
E: D’s exgf will testify that D pointed same pistol at her head in 1998

Answer 12

DA rebuts defense- high prejudice and 403 should exclude the evidence
held: admit because narrative integrity, inextricably intertwined to the fact of strength of memory

Question 13

People v. Burnett
Charged with animal cruelty because threw a dog into traffic during road rage.

Answer 13

defense claim dog thrown instinctively when it bit him
E: prior incident of killing dogs during navy service in 1995
held: admit prior act because shows absence of accident and it is a rebuttal to the defense

Question 14

D shot W, D claims rifel went off when cleaning it. E: 3 years earlier, D shot 1st W, claimed it was while he was cleaning gun

Answer 14

probably admit for lack of accident- D raises accident defense, DA gets to rebut with unlikely

Question 15

doctrine of chances

Rex v. Smith

Answer 15

E admissible in case in chief because improbability of events occurring the way D says
other acts are so unlikely as to make it objectively impossible that so many accidents would befall the accused
assessment of the relative likelihood of events

Is this propensity reasoning?
Yes: How could innocent be charged again? Just saying he is guilty because he is a killer
No: doesnt require propensity, because an objective assessment of unlikelihood, not subjective

Question 16

Huddleston v. US
Charged with selling stolen goods
issue: did the D know they were stolen?

Answer 16

DA offered 2 incidents with other stolen goods and admits under 404b for knowledge
E allowed if DA can show that the fact occurred by preponderance of the E
Issue: what standard governs admission of other acts?
Held: admit if reasonable jury could decide act occurred to a preponderance of the evidence. based on legislative intent, policy and fairness

Question 17

Dowling v. US
D charged with bank robbery by a man in ski mask in US virgin islands

Answer 17

E: other act of robbery by man in ski mask, V unmasked him and it was D
D was aquitted on the other charges
identity is a non-propensity purpose
held: other act admissible because not guilty on higher burden of proof, did still meet huddleston standard

Question 18

404(a)(2)(A)

Answer 18

permissible uses of character
(a)(2)(A) Character of D: in a criminal case, a D may offer E of D’s pertinent trait, and if the E is admitted, the DA may offer E to rebut
EX; assault, D shows character for peacefulness to show they were not the first aggressor, the DA can show the D is violent to rebut

Question 19

404(a)(2)(B)

Answer 19

Character of the alleged V: in a criminal case, subject to 412, a D may offer E of an alledged V’s pertinent trait, and if E is admitted, the DA may offer (i) oE to rebut it; and (ii) offer E of the D’s same trait
Ex: assault case- D brings up V’s character for violence to show V was first aggressor- DA can respond by showing V not violent but also by showing that D is violent
(a)(2)(C): V in homicide case- DA may initiate, on peacefulness of V

Question 21

Michelson v. US
Bribery- D says agent extorted money from him
D offered 5 character W

Answer 21

5 W who say that D has a reputation for honesty in community
DA asks 4 W on cross about 1927 conviction and 1920 arrest.
OK for D to bring in character to show he wouldnt do this and raise reasonable doubt. D cannot raise specific instances
DA can attack D character because D opened the door and raised the issue of character. DA can then test the sufficiency of w’s knowledge of D
Held: D W’s permitted because character for honesty incompatible with charge and DA is OK to test qualifications of W testimony
to raise an issue on cross, must have information that reasonably leads you to believe the acts were committed.

Question 22

US v. Keiser
shooting- V makes a threat in hallway during trial

Answer 22

E: DA wants to bring in hallway threat to show V is violent
is the V character for violence admissible- must be pertinent under 404a2
no- under 405, D is limited to R&O on direct
this is a specific instance and not R&O

Question 23

406

Answer 23

Habit E
E of a persons habit or an organizations routine practice may be admitted to prove that on a particular occassion the person or organization acted in accordance with the habit or routine practoce

Question 24

Halloran v. VI Chemicals
Exploding freon can during AC recharge
E: D wants to show P’s heating cans improperly using a W
TC: Sustained

Answer 24

relevant; yes- more likely P negligence and D not liable
admissible under 404? No- propensity reasoning
what is a habit: a deliberate and repetitive response to specific situation, where person likely to repeat it again
Held: remand for facts- but court should admit the E if shows to be a habit based on the number of occurrence and time and place of them.
Habit involves invariable regularity and is predicatable and predictive of conduct

Question 25

Weil v. Seltzer
P family sued Dr for prescribing steroids as antihistamines

Answer 25

E: P wants to introduce 8 other patients with same experience
Held: excluded because P hasnt established habit- proponent cannot make a showing that it has regularly occurred, but needs to show it is habitual- here needed more facts such as number of total patients

Question 26

404 & common plan

Answer 26

charge with DV homicide. DA asking to introduce prior incidents of battery of the spouse.
Each is an invident involving assault without a weapon and a 911 call. DA says allowed because each instances addresses control over the V
allowed if key to case is showing a common plan of control

Question 27

US v. Guardia

Answer 27

D charged with sexual abuse of V from dr visits. DA offers acts with 4 other V
TC excluded under 403.
413: admit because D charged with SA, E is another instance of SA and E is relevant
Held: 403 balancing still applies and cannot admit everything because will confuse the jury here- situations are so similar that jury will not be able to separate E for this V in this trial