2. This evidence is

Relevant evidence is evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of an action more or less probable than it would be without the evidence. Fed. R. Evid. 401. It is the use of character as circumstantial evidence of how a person probably acted that raises the most difficult problems of relevance, especially in criminal cases.

The basic rule is that when a person is charged with a crime, extrinsic evidence of her other crimes or misconduct is inadmissible if such evidence is offered solely to establish a criminal disposition. Thus, under FRE 404(b), the prosecution may not show the accused's bad character to imply criminal disposition.

Evidence of other crimes or misconduct is admissible 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, 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.

Under FRE 404(b), independently relevant uncharged misconduct by the defendant will be admissible, without a preliminary ruling, as long as: (i) there is sufficient evidence to support a jury finding that the defendant committed the prior act (i.e., the standard of FRE 104); and (ii) its probative value on the issue of motive, intent, identity, or other independently relevant proposition is not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. Fed. R. Evid. 403; Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681 (1988).

D is correct. Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of an accused person in order to show action in conformity therewith. Here, the prosecutor is seeking to introduce evidence that the defendant robbed two other stores in order to prove that the defendant robbed this particular store. This evidence is inadmissible because it is attempting to prove bad character. The probative value of the other robberies is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to the defendant. At this point in the trial, the evidence is not admissible for any other purpose.

A is incorrect. The defendant's prior bad acts (the other robberies) do not prove any «pertinent trait» to an armed robbery charge. They are an attempt to demonstrate the defendant's likelihood of committing bad behavior based on prior bad behavior. In other words, because the defendant robbed two other stores, he must have robbed this one. The Rules specifically exclude this type of evidence from being used to show that the defendant's present actions were in conformity with past actions.

B is incorrect. Although evidence of other acts may be admissible to show intent or identity, these prior acts are not being offered for those purposes. There are no facts to indicate that the prior robberies are being used to prove anything other than that the defendant committed this particular robbery, which is an impermissible use of character evidence.

C is incorrect. Although this is a correct statement of the law, it does not apply to the facts in this question. The prior robberies are inadmissible character evidence at this point in the trial, and the analysis should end there. There is no need to determine whether this is the proper method to admit the evidence.