Shawnology wrote:Hey Themis Bretheren first of all hope everyone is doing well this last week. I hope we can all kill it so I can continue to talk about my friends who spend three times as much for the same result.
With that being said, can anyone help me with this, I feel the answer is contradictory the explanation.
Spoiler MBE Mixed Set Session 8
31. (Question ID#2817)
A defendant is on trial for the murder of his father. The defendant’s defense is that he shot his father accidentally. The prosecutor calls a police officer as a witness to testify that on two occasions in the year prior to this incident, he had been called to the defendant’s home because of complaints of loud arguments between the defendant and his father, and had found it necessary to stop the defendant from beating his father.
Defense counsel objected to the introduction of the police officer’s testimony. How should the court rule?
A. Exclude the testimony, because it is improper character evidence.
B. Exclude the testimony, because the police officer lacks firsthand knowledge of who started the quarrels.
C. Admit the testimony, to show that the defendant killed his father intentionally.
D. Admit the testimony to show that the defendant is a violent person.
Incorrect: Answer choice C is correct. In criminal cases, evidence of the defendant’s bad character is not admissible to prove that the defendant has a propensity to commit crimes and therefore is likely to have committed the crime in question. Therefore, answer choice D is incorrect. Although a defendant’s prior bad acts would not be admissible as character evidence, they could be admissible under the MIMIC rule. Here, the evidence of the defendant beating his father could be used to help show intent. Answer choice A is a true statement about admissibility as character evidence, but the evidence would still be admissible under a different theory, the MIMIC rule. Answer choice B is incorrect because firsthand knowledge of who started the quarrels is irrelevant.
The foregoing NCBE MBE question has been modified to reflect current NCBE stylistic approaches; the NCBE has not reviewed or endorsed this modification.
Thanks you two. I am getting to the point where I am over-thinking EVERYTHING. I appreciate the explanations.