Pg 15

Question 1

What is entailed in MIMIC past acts non-propensity purpose exception?

Answer 1

Past acts can be admissible if they are used for some other purpose that doesn’t include a propensity inference

Question 2

MIMIC past acts non-propensity purpose exception allows evidence of crimes, wrongs, or other acts to be admitted not to prove that on a certain occasion they acted in accordance with that character, or a disposition to commit crimes, but for what?

Answer 2

To prove:
- malice
– Opportunity
– intent
– preparation
– planning
– knowledge
– identity
– absence of mistake
– or lack of accident

Question 3

Under a past acts non-propensity purpose exception a.k.a. MIMIC what is the method that is allowed to show those things?

Answer 3

Specific instances of conduct

Question 4

What are some things that would fall under “other acts” that can be admitted under a MIMIC exception?

Answer 4

Acquittal for technical reasons, arrest that didn’t lead to trial, police observation that didn’t end in arrest, police/private suspicion not based on direct observation

Question 5

Essentially mimic past act non-propensity purpose exception allows what?

Answer 5

The introduction of evidence of another crime/wrong/act unless the only reason you are offering it is to establish the defendant’s propensity for crime

Question 6

Is it permissible for evidence of an arrest for a crime to be admissible to establish that a person committed the crime?

Answer 6

No

Question 7

In a criminal case, if a defendant requests it, what must the prosecution provide if they intend to introduce evidence under mimic?

Answer 7

– They must give reasonable notice of the general nature of any evidence that they intend to offer a trial
– this must be done before trial or during trial if the court excuses a lack of notice for good cause

Question 8

Under the mimic exceptions, when can evidence of crimes, wrongs, or other acts be admitted?

Answer 8

When they are relevant for other purposes besides propensity

Question 9

What does mimic stand for?

Answer 9

– motive
– intent
– mistake/absence of
– identity
– common scheme or plan

Question 10

What is the only way you can introduce mimic evidence?

Answer 10

For specific instances. You cannot do it through reputation or opinion

Question 11

What are some major categories under mimic that can be admitted that don’t technically fall into the mimic abbreviation?

Answer 11

Opportunity and preparation

Question 12

Mimic exceptions apply to what type of cases?

Answer 12

Criminal and civil

Question 13

What is included under motive as a mimic non-propensity purpose exception?

Answer 13

It is permissible to admit the emotion or state of mind that prompted the person to act. This can include addiction, which could be a motive for something like robbery, or if the crime was motivated by a taste for that act or compulsion, like sex crimes.

Question 14

How do you reveal the motive of a fire bug/arsonist under mimic?

Answer 14

Arsonists burn things just to watch the fire, so the motive can be revealed by the defendant’s past commission of the same crime

Question 15

If a defendant is prosecuted for attempted murder, and in his case in chief the defendant testified, then on rebuttal the prosecution called a witness that testified that the defendant was previously convicted of a felony for vandalizing people’s homes and writing racial slurs on the walls. Would this be allowed to impeach the defendant?

Answer 15

Yes if it is offered to prove that the defendant had a racial animus against the plaintiff, which speaks to motive. So specific instances could be used for the non-propensity mimic purpose of motive

Question 16

What is involved in the non-propensity mimic purpose of opportunity?

Answer 16

Physical presence in the range of time or place can help form the belief that the defendant committed the act. If it is possible that others had an equal opportunity to do the crime, providing evidence that cuts off those other theories by showing the defendant was the only one of a few or the only person with the opportunity is permissible

Question 17

Can the prosecution offer evidence that defendant broke out of prison one hour before the murder occurred and that the prison was only 1 mile away?

Answer 17

It is OK if it is offered to show that the defendant was in the vicinity and in a position to commit the crime, although this could still be excluded because of 403 prejudice (perhaps the judge will allow the evidence in a less prejudicial form, like by not telling the jury he escaped from prison, but just that he was in that area)

Question 18

What are the two different ways you can show opportunity as a mimic non-propensity exception?

Answer 18

• showing that the person was in the physical range of time or place to do the act
  – evidence that shows the defendant had the technical know-how, access to tools, or skills needed to commit the crime

Question 19

Would it be permissible to provide evidence in a robbery case that the defendant is the best safe robber in town and had previously cracked a trickier safe?

Answer 19

Yes, to show that he had the technical know-how and skills that were needed to commit the crime, and this would fall under opportunity

Question 20

What is involved in the intent exception under mimic non-propensity purpose exceptions?

Answer 20

Intent to commit the crime is an issue of the crime. It is permissible to admit evidence of the state of mind of the defendant that would negate it being committed as an accident, by inadvertence, or casualty. If a defendant committed a prior crime or wrong that can establish intent by showing an absence of any previous explanation for his activities. The more often a similar act has been done, the less probable that it was done innocently

Question 21

How does the doctrine of chances fit into the intent exception under mimic?

Answer 21

It asks what the odds are that a defendant committed that wrong act multiple times before, but that this time it happened unintentionally

Question 22

How is preparation considered a mimic non-propensity exception?

Answer 22

If you do something in advance of a crime to get ready, that is admissible. I.e.: you steal a car for a robbery, or you put on brass knuckles to go into a bar to fight

Question 23

What is involved in plan/scheme/conspiracy as an exception under the mimic non-propensity purpose exception?

Answer 23

If you can show prior mental resolve to commit a criminal act and the fact that the person engaged and worked out the particulars, that is admissible. This involves doing a criminal act as a step toward completing a larger criminal plan. I.e.: robbing pharmacies as part of a drug conspiracy case

Question 24

What is involved in the knowledge or absence of mistake exception under mimic non-propensity purpose exception?

Answer 24

Proof of knowledge shows that the defendant did not act inadvertently or mistakenly. This comes up when the defendant claims ignorance that the crime was happening. I.e.: narcotics prosecution where defendant claims he didn’t know he had drugs in his bag, the other side can admit evidence of a prior act of him trafficking drugs in the same way to show that he acted with the necessary state of mind to commit the offence

Question 25

If an illegal alien is found in the hood of your car at the border, and you say they crawled in there all on their own, how does the doctrine of chances apply to this under the knowledge or absence of mistake exception for a mimic non-propensity purpose exception?

Answer 25

The other side can introduce evidence that this same thing has happened before, and then ask what the chances are that you knew about it happening before, but this time you had no idea

Question 26

What are the two ways that you can establish identity of the perpetrator as a mimic non-propensity purpose exception?

Answer 26

– modus operandi/method of operation

– absence of mistake/lack of accident

Question 27

How does modus operandi work under identity of the perpetrator as a mimic non-propensity purpose exception?

Answer 27

It is acceptable to prove other similar crimes that were nearly identical in method and earmarked as the handiwork of the accused to show that this was his modus operandi. This evidence is admitted to show that the defendant likely committed the crime, not because of an inference that he’s the kind of guy to commit this crime, but because of the way the prior crimes were carried out so distinctively that they point to the way the defendant carried out this crime due to a common characteristics

Question 28

Is it enough to show identity of the perpetrator as a mimic non-propensity purpose exception under modus operandi to just say that there was a repeating of crimes in the same class such as robberies?

Answer 28

No, you need something like an unusual or distinctive element such as a special device or something that constitutes a signature

Question 29

What is the test that is used to determine that modus operandi applies to show the identity of the perpetrator under a MIMIC Non-propensity purpose exception?

Answer 29

Totality of comparison. This requires the conjunction of several identifying characteristics or the presence of highly distinctive qualities or a number of common features of lesser uniqueness all coming together. It considers geographic location, the same premises, unusual quality of the crime, skills needed to commit the act, use of a distinctive device. Greater weight is given to extremely unique factors