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.
45. Should the court admit this evidence?
A defendant was charged with conspiracy to possess cocaine with intent to distribute. While on bail with travel restricted to his home state, he purchased an airplane ticket to another country by using an alias. At trial, the prosecution seeks to introduce evidence of the defendant's ticket purchase.
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
A is incorrect. Evidence that the defendant tried to flee from prosecution because he purchased an airplane ticket to another country using an alias while his travel was restricted satisfies the definition of relevance to help show his consciousness of guilt. It makes his guilt more probable than it would be without the evidence.
B is incorrect. Evidence of an intent to flee is relevant to show the defendant's consciousness of guilt but not to show his motive to commit the crime. The defendant's attempt to flee the jurisdiction after his arrest sheds no light on his motive to commit the crime.
D is incorrect. Proof of motive is generally relevant and admissible, but evidence of the defendant's intent to flee after his arrest sheds no light on his motive to commit the crime. Because the evidence is irrelevant to motive, it is inadmissible if offered for the sole purpose of proving motive.