During the trial of a defendant accused of bank robbery, the prosecution seeks to introduce evidence that the defendant robbed another bank five years ago. The prior robbery resulted in a conviction. The prosecution argues that this evidence shows the defendant’s propensity to commit bank robberies. The defense objects to the evidence. How should the court likely rule?
The evidence is admissible because it demonstrates the defendant’s criminal history, which is relevant to their guilt.
The evidence is inadmissible because it is being used to show a propensity to commit the crime in question, which is not a permissible purpose.
The evidence is admissible if the prior conviction was for the same type of crime as the current charge.
The evidence is inadmissible unless the defendant testifies and opens the door to their past criminal conduct.
The correct answer is based on the general rule under the Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) that prior acts are not admissible to prove a person's character or propensity to commit a crime. However, such evidence may be admissible for other purposes, such as motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident. It is critical to evaluate the reason the prior act is being introduced. Here, the prosecution is improperly attempting to use the prior robbery to show a propensity, which is inadmissible. If the prosecution argued for a relevant purpose under the exceptions (e.g., specific intent), it might be admissible with an appropriate limiting instruction.
Ask Bash
Bash is our AI bot, trained to help you pass your exam. AI Generated Content may display inaccurate information, always double-check anything important.
What are the Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE)?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
What exceptions exist under the FRE that allow prior acts to be admissible?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
What does it mean to open the door to past criminal conduct?