Full access allows:
- Solve all tests online without limits;
- Remove all advertisements on website;
- Adding questions to favorite list;
- Save learning progress;
- Save results of practice exams;
- Watching all wrong answered questions.
16. The evidence is
A defendant is on trial for the murder of his father. The defendant's defense is that he shot his father accidentally. The prosecutor calls a witness, a police officer, to testify that on two occasions in the year prior to this incident, he had been called to the defendant's home because of complaints of loud arguments between the defendant and his father, and had found it necessary to stop the defendant from beating his father.
Comments (0)
There are no comments at the moment. If you found an error or think question is incorrect, tell everyone about it
Only signed in users can write comments
Signin
Evidence of other crimes or misconduct is admissible, however, if these acts are relevant to some issue other than the defendant's character or disposition to commit the crime charged. While acknowledging that prior acts or crimes are not admissible to show conformity or to imply bad character, Federal Rule of Evidence (FRE) 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) whenever these issues are relevant in either a criminal or a civil case.
C is correct. Evidence of prior bad acts is generally not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith. However, it may be admissible for other purposes, such as intent and absence of mistake or accident. Here, the defendant is claiming that he unintentionally shot his father. Evidence of prior arguments and near-beatings between the defendant and his father is therefore admissible to prove that the killing of his father was intentional, not accidental.
A is incorrect. Although the general rule is that evidence of prior bad acts may not be used to show someone's propensity for criminal activity, here, the evidence is not being offered to prove action in conformity therewith. Rather, it is being offered to prove intent and absence of mistake or accident.
B is incorrect. There is no requirement that the police officer, when called as a witness, must have firsthand knowledge of who started the quarrels in order to make this evidence relevant to the issue of whether the defendant shot his father intentionally or accidentally.
D is incorrect. This answer reaches the correct answer with the wrong reasoning. Evidence of other acts is not admissible to show the defendant's violent character. It is admissible, however, for other purposes, including establishing intent and lack of mistake or accident.