Anyone else think that the Evidence questions are absolutely terribly worded. For example:
SPOILER EVIDENCE QUESTION
A defendant is on trial for attempted fraud. The state charges that the defendant switched a price tag from a cloth coat to a more expensive fur-trimmed coat and then presented the latter for purchase at the cash register. The defendant testified in her own behalf that the tag must have been switched by someone else. On cross-examination, the prosecutor asks whether the defendant was convicted on two prior occasions of misdemeanor fraud in the defrauding of a retailer by the same means of switching the price tag on a fur-trimmed coat.
Is the question about the convictions for the earlier crimes proper?
A. It is not proper either to impeach the defendant or to prove that the defendant committed the crime.
B. It is proper both to prove that the defendant committed the crime and to impeach the defendant.
C. It is proper to impeach the defendant, but not to prove that the defendant committed the crime.
D. It is proper to prove the defendant committed the crime, but not to impeach the defendant.
Incorrect: Answer choice B is correct because under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b), prior bad acts can be admitted to prove the defendant's conduct if offered for some purpose other than to show that the defendant is a bad person. In this case, the bad acts are very similar to the acts in dispute, and tend to show non-character purposes such as motive, intent, absence of mistake, identity, or common plan or scheme (the "MIMIC" rule). Thus the bad acts can be offered as proof that the defendant committed the crime charged. Prior bad acts are also admissible for the purpose of impeachment. Answer choice A is incorrect because it states the opposite of the rule. Answer choices C and D are incorrect because prior bad acts are admissible as both substantive evidence (making choice C incorrect) and impeachment evidence (making choice D incorrect).
Now I know that prior bad acts cannot be used to show conformity with a crime but can be used to show the motive, plan, etc. And I know that misdemeanors which incorporate truthfulness can be brought up. However no where does answer choice B suggest to me that they are using the evidence for motive, common plan, etc.