6. The court should admit evidence of

The use of character evidence to establish how a person probably acted raises the most difficult problems of relevance, especially in criminal cases. The general rule is that the prosecution cannot initiate evidence of the bad character of the defendant merely to show that she is more likely to have committed the crime of which she is accused. When a person is charged with one 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, however, if these acts are relevant to some issue other than the defendant's character or disposition to commit the crime charged. Fed. R. Evid. 404(b). 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.

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).

C is correct. The issue here is whether each piece of evidence — the defendant's obtaining duplicate insurance and the threat to kill his ex-wife — is admissible under the rules governing relevance and character evidence. Evidence of other crimes or acts is generally not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith. Such evidence may be admissible, however, for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident. The fact that the defendant obtained duplicate insurance of the burned property is relevant because it shows the defendant's motive for committing the arson. Any minor prejudicial effect of the evidence of duplicate insurance would be outweighed by the probative value of the evidence. The defendant's threat to kill his ex-wife if she testifies is also relevant and admissible because it establishes the defendant's plan and knowledge, and his consciousness of his guilt. The highly probative nature of this evidence is not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. Both obtaining duplicate insurance and threatening to kill his ex-wife are therefore admissible.

A is incorrect. Although evidence of the defendant's obtaining duplicate insurance is admissible to establish the defendant's motive for committing arson, the threat to kill his ex-wife is also admissible, as explained above.

B is incorrect. Although evidence of the defendant's threat to kill his ex-wife is admissible to establish the defendant's plan, knowledge, and consciousness of guilt, his obtaining duplicate insurance is also admissible as evidence of motive for committing arson.

D is incorrect. As explained above, both the duplicate insurance and the threat to kill his ex-wife are admissible.