During a criminal trial, the prosecution presents evidence that the defendant had previously committed similar crimes, arguing it shows a pattern of behavior and intent. The defense attorney objects to this evidence. On what grounds is the defense attorney most likely objecting?
- APrivilege
- BRelevance (Propensity Evidence)
- CLack of Foundation
- DHearsay
Show answer & explanationAnswer & explanation
Correct answer: B. Relevance (Propensity Evidence)
Evidence of prior bad acts (propensity evidence) is generally inadmissible to prove that a defendant acted in conformity with that character on a particular occasion. While there are exceptions (e.g., to show intent, motive, or identity), the primary objection is that it's being used to suggest a general criminal propensity, which is typically excluded under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b).
Why the other options are wrong
- A. Privilege protects certain confidential communications (e.g., attorney-client), which is unrelated to evidence of prior bad acts.
- C. Lack of foundation means the evidence hasn't been properly introduced or authenticated; it's not the primary objection to prior bad acts.
- D. Hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered for the truth of the matter asserted; prior acts themselves are not inherently hearsay.
Propensity Evidence (Rule 404(b))
Evidence of a person's character or a trait of character is generally not admissible to prove that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character or trait. However, such evidence may be admissible for other purposes, such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident.
- Generally inadmissible to prove conduct in conformity with character
- Admissible for non-propensity purposes (M.O.I.P.P.K.I.A.)
- Requires specific purpose and often a limiting instruction
- Balances probative value against prejudicial effect
Memory trick: Don't 'Propensity' blame, unless it proves 'Motive' or 'Intent'.