Confusing Evidence Question Forum
Forum rules
Anonymous Posting
Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are sharing sensitive information about bar exam prep. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.
Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned."
Anonymous Posting
Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are sharing sensitive information about bar exam prep. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.
Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned."
- MoneyMay
- Posts: 257
- Joined: Mon May 12, 2014 2:59 am
Confusing Evidence Question
A defendant is charged with aggravated assault on a game warden. The defendant testified that, when he was confronted by the warden, who was armed and out of uniform, the defendant believed the warden was a robber and shot in self-defense. The state calls a witness to testify that a year earlier, he had seen the defendant shoot a man without provocation and thereafter falsely claimed self-defense.
The witness's testimony is
A. admissible, as evidence of the defendant's untruthfulness.
B. admissible, as evidence that the defendant did not act in self-defense on this occasion.
C. inadmissible, because it is improper character evidence.
D. inadmissible, because it is irrelevant to the defense the defendant raised.
The answer is C and for the life of me I can't figure out why this isn't admissible under MIMIC. I feel like I've seen this one a millino times and the answer has always been B.
The witness's testimony is
A. admissible, as evidence of the defendant's untruthfulness.
B. admissible, as evidence that the defendant did not act in self-defense on this occasion.
C. inadmissible, because it is improper character evidence.
D. inadmissible, because it is irrelevant to the defense the defendant raised.
The answer is C and for the life of me I can't figure out why this isn't admissible under MIMIC. I feel like I've seen this one a millino times and the answer has always been B.
- Georgia Avenue
- Posts: 414
- Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2011 9:42 am
Re: Confusing Evidence Question
The answer can't be B, because then you would be offering the evidence solely to show the defendant acted in accordance in the present situation. That's an impermissible way to use prior acts against a defendant.MoneyMay wrote:A defendant is charged with aggravated assault on a game warden. The defendant testified that, when he was confronted by the warden, who was armed and out of uniform, the defendant believed the warden was a robber and shot in self-defense. The state calls a witness to testify that a year earlier, he had seen the defendant shoot a man without provocation and thereafter falsely claimed self-defense.
The witness's testimony is
A. admissible, as evidence of the defendant's untruthfulness.
B. admissible, as evidence that the defendant did not act in self-defense on this occasion.
C. inadmissible, because it is improper character evidence.
D. inadmissible, because it is irrelevant to the defense the defendant raised.
The answer is C and for the life of me I can't figure out why this isn't admissible under MIMIC. I feel like I've seen this one a millino times and the answer has always been B.
This is really one where process of elimination gets you C. We know it's not A because the defendant hasn't opened the door to character evidence of his untruthfulness, so that's an impermissible use, and even if he had it's an impermissible way to impeach the defendant. We know it's not D because it's obviously relevant - relevance has a very low bar and we're definitely over it here, since this evidence would tend to make a material fact more or less likely. For the reasons above, it's not B either. So that leaves us with C.
Last edited by Georgia Avenue on Sun Jul 27, 2014 7:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- Mroberts3
- Posts: 300
- Joined: Sat Oct 03, 2009 10:10 pm
Re: Confusing Evidence Question
MIMIC doesn't work for something that generic. The default rule is you can't bring in past conduct to prove guilt in the particular case. What specific exception do you think applies?
An example of where MIMIC would apply would be the bank robber who wears a chicken mask. You could introduce evidence of prior robberies where he was linked to the mask to prove identity in the current case (say he wasn't caught in the act in the current case but we know it was the chicken mask robber). Of course the defense would argue it was a copy cat, but this goes to weight not admissibility.
In this question's example you could only introduce general reputation for violence of the defendant if the defense first claimed the game warden was a violent person.
For what it is worth, I would have said D just because the thrust of the defense has to do with the warden's carrying a weapon out of uniform. A factually different past incident of "self-defense" is irrelevant to the current case. C is correct, but I think it is based on the same logic that D is getting at.
EDIT: the poster above is correct. I suppose the past incident is relevant (although pretty minimally) -- the reason it is excluded is for the reasons stated in C.
An example of where MIMIC would apply would be the bank robber who wears a chicken mask. You could introduce evidence of prior robberies where he was linked to the mask to prove identity in the current case (say he wasn't caught in the act in the current case but we know it was the chicken mask robber). Of course the defense would argue it was a copy cat, but this goes to weight not admissibility.
In this question's example you could only introduce general reputation for violence of the defendant if the defense first claimed the game warden was a violent person.
For what it is worth, I would have said D just because the thrust of the defense has to do with the warden's carrying a weapon out of uniform. A factually different past incident of "self-defense" is irrelevant to the current case. C is correct, but I think it is based on the same logic that D is getting at.
EDIT: the poster above is correct. I suppose the past incident is relevant (although pretty minimally) -- the reason it is excluded is for the reasons stated in C.
- MoneyMay
- Posts: 257
- Joined: Mon May 12, 2014 2:59 am
Re: Confusing Evidence Question
I thought lack of mistake applied and I still don't understand why it doesn't.
-
- Posts: 128
- Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2014 5:37 am
Re: Confusing Evidence Question
Wait, why cant it be A again? Defendant is testifying currently, so can't you attack him with dishonest prior bad acts relating to truthfulness? I am probably mistaken, when can you use prior bad acts against a D or a W when the prior bad act is about their dishonesty?Georgia Avenue wrote:The answer can't be B, because then you would be offering the evidence solely to show the defendant acted in accordance in the present situation. That's an impermissible way to use prior acts against a defendant.MoneyMay wrote:A defendant is charged with aggravated assault on a game warden. The defendant testified that, when he was confronted by the warden, who was armed and out of uniform, the defendant believed the warden was a robber and shot in self-defense. The state calls a witness to testify that a year earlier, he had seen the defendant shoot a man without provocation and thereafter falsely claimed self-defense.
The witness's testimony is
A. admissible, as evidence of the defendant's untruthfulness.
B. admissible, as evidence that the defendant did not act in self-defense on this occasion.
C. inadmissible, because it is improper character evidence.
D. inadmissible, because it is irrelevant to the defense the defendant raised.
The answer is C and for the life of me I can't figure out why this isn't admissible under MIMIC. I feel like I've seen this one a millino times and the answer has always been B.
This is really one where process of elimination gets you C. We know it's not A because the defendant hasn't opened the door to character evidence of his untruthfulness, so that's an impermissible use, and even if he had it's an impermissible way to impeach the defendant. We know it's not D because it's obviously relevant - relevance has a very low bar and we're definitely over it here, since this evidence would tend to make a material fact more or less likely. For the reasons above, it's not B either. So that leaves us with C.
Want to continue reading?
Register now to search topics and post comments!
Absolutely FREE!
Already a member? Login
- Georgia Avenue
- Posts: 414
- Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2011 9:42 am
Re: Confusing Evidence Question
The shooter is not claiming he made a mistake. He intentionally shot the warden, only he says it was in self-defense. Lack of mistake is more of a situation where a scientist gets caught making drugs/contraband chemicals in a lab and claims he did it by accident, not knowing what he was mixing together. You could then use a prior arrest for making those same or similar chemicals as evidence refuting his defense of mistake.MoneyMay wrote:I thought lack of mistake applied and I still don't understand why it doesn't.
Regarding A - you cannot impeach a witness's credibility with direct examination testimony of the witness's prior bad acts (Rule 608(c)). You can only inquire about specific bad acts on cross-examination with a good faith basis.
- MoneyMay
- Posts: 257
- Joined: Mon May 12, 2014 2:59 am
Re: Confusing Evidence Question
It's not A because it has nothing to do with his honesty
-
- Posts: 128
- Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2014 5:37 am
Re: Confusing Evidence Question
ok, thanks. I knew u couldnt use bad acts, but for some reason I thought there was an exception for "truthfulness"Georgia Avenue wrote:The shooter is not claiming he made a mistake. He intentionally shot the warden, only he says it was in self-defense. Lack of mistake is more of a situation where a scientist gets caught making drugs/contraband chemicals in a lab and claims he did it by accident, not knowing what he was mixing together. You could then use a prior arrest for making those same or similar chemicals as evidence refuting his defense of mistake.MoneyMay wrote:I thought lack of mistake applied and I still don't understand why it doesn't.
Regarding A - you cannot impeach a witness's credibility with direct examination testimony of the witness's prior bad acts (Rule 608(c)). You can only inquire about specific bad acts on cross-examination with a good faith basis.
-
- Posts: 128
- Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2014 5:37 am
Re: Confusing Evidence Question
"The state calls a witness to testify that a year earlier, he had seen the defendant shoot a man without provocation and thereafter falsely claimed self-defense."MoneyMay wrote:It's not A because it has nothing to do with his honesty
Seems to be related to honesty for me.
- Georgia Avenue
- Posts: 414
- Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2011 9:42 am
Re: Confusing Evidence Question
And that's all you need. For evidence to be relevant is just has to have ANY tendency to make a material fact more or less likely. Even if it only makes a fact .0001% more or less likely, it's relevant. Exactly how relevant a piece of evidence is goes only to the weight, not the admissibility, of the evidence.Mroberts3 wrote:I suppose the past incident is relevant (although pretty minimally).
It's not A because of irrelevance - it's relevant to his honesty - but it's not admissible under A because it's an improper way to impeach the defendant's credibility under Rule 608(c).
- MoneyMay
- Posts: 257
- Joined: Mon May 12, 2014 2:59 am
Re: Confusing Evidence Question
Wait... if you have a good faith basis you can ask someone about prior bad acts it's just you can't use extrinsic evidence to prove them I thought.pizzasodafries wrote:ok, thanks. I knew u couldnt use bad acts, but for some reason I thought there was an exception for "truthfulness"Georgia Avenue wrote:The shooter is not claiming he made a mistake. He intentionally shot the warden, only he says it was in self-defense. Lack of mistake is more of a situation where a scientist gets caught making drugs/contraband chemicals in a lab and claims he did it by accident, not knowing what he was mixing together. You could then use a prior arrest for making those same or similar chemicals as evidence refuting his defense of mistake.MoneyMay wrote:I thought lack of mistake applied and I still don't understand why it doesn't.
Regarding A - you cannot impeach a witness's credibility with direct examination testimony of the witness's prior bad acts (Rule 608(c)). You can only inquire about specific bad acts on cross-examination with a good faith basis.
- Georgia Avenue
- Posts: 414
- Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2011 9:42 am
Re: Confusing Evidence Question
You might be thinking of Rule 609 impeachment - where we'll allow the prosecutor to ask about prior criminal convictions so long as they're felonies or crimes of dishonesty, because we view those crimes as so indicative of a witness's character for truth that we should let them in.pizzasodafries wrote:ok, thanks. I knew u couldnt use bad acts, but for some reason I thought there was an exception for "truthfulness"
-
- Posts: 49
- Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2011 11:48 am
Re: Confusing Evidence Question
Even so, I don't think the prosecution can call its own witness and ask about a specific instance that is probative of D's truthfulness. It would have to be reputation or opinion testimony. Specific instances are only permitted on cross of D's own witness.pizzasodafries wrote:"The state calls a witness to testify that a year earlier, he had seen the defendant shoot a man without provocation and thereafter falsely claimed self-defense."MoneyMay wrote:It's not A because it has nothing to do with his honesty
Seems to be related to honesty for me.
Register now!
Resources to assist law school applicants, students & graduates.
It's still FREE!
Already a member? Login
- Georgia Avenue
- Posts: 414
- Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2011 9:42 am
Re: Confusing Evidence Question
Correct, on cross-examination only of that witness.MoneyMay wrote:pizzasodafries wrote:Wait... if you have a good faith basis you can ask someone about prior bad acts it's just you can't use extrinsic evidence to prove them I thought.
You cannot call another witness - which is what the prosecutor did here - to testify on direct examination about ANOTHER witness's prior bad acts for the purpose of impeaching the first witness.
-
- Posts: 49
- Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2011 11:48 am
Re: Confusing Evidence Question
BTW, this thread proves why character evidence and modes of impeachment suck ass.
At least in my humble opinion.
At least in my humble opinion.
-
- Posts: 128
- Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2014 5:37 am
Re: Confusing Evidence Question
thank you, this is where I was mistaken, they had to cross him with this and live with his answer. I think that would have been the proper way (in this case they likely would have needed a 403 weighing to decide the prejudice vs probative value of that question most likely)LouEVille wrote:Even so, I don't think the prosecution can call its own witness and ask about a specific instance that is probative of D's truthfulness. It would have to be reputation or opinion testimony. Specific instances are only permitted on cross of D's own witness.pizzasodafries wrote:"The state calls a witness to testify that a year earlier, he had seen the defendant shoot a man without provocation and thereafter falsely claimed self-defense."MoneyMay wrote:It's not A because it has nothing to do with his honesty
Seems to be related to honesty for me.
- Georgia Avenue
- Posts: 414
- Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2011 9:42 am
Re: Confusing Evidence Question
The hardest part of evidence, by far.LouEVille wrote:BTW, this thread proves why character evidence and modes of impeachment suck ass.
At least in my humble opinion.
Get unlimited access to all forums and topics
Register now!
I'm pretty sure I told you it's FREE...
Already a member? Login
- MoneyMay
- Posts: 257
- Joined: Mon May 12, 2014 2:59 am
Re: Confusing Evidence Question
Okay where I got tripped up was there was no mistake or accident defense. If there was then I think it would've gotten in. Evidence is my best subject on the MBE (I always only miss a few) but this is killing my confidence.
-
- Posts: 128
- Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2014 5:37 am
Re: Confusing Evidence Question
I knew it wasn't MIMIC and I still got it wrongMoneyMay wrote:Okay where I got tripped up was there was no mistake or accident defense. If there was then I think it would've gotten in. Evidence is my best subject on the MBE (I always only miss a few) but this is killing my confidence.
- MoneyMay
- Posts: 257
- Joined: Mon May 12, 2014 2:59 am
Re: Confusing Evidence Question
Question: Had he claimed a mistake/ accident defense, would this have been MIMIC and admissible?
-
- Posts: 128
- Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2014 5:37 am
Re: Confusing Evidence Question
the evidence would have to show that it could not have been a mistake or accident on this occasion. Don't think a situation from a year before would be tied in to show this was not a mistake or accident a year later. Not sure though, Mistake or Accident was never really elaborated on with proper hypos. All I remember is the "knife" case and that it couldn't have been an accident since she did the same thing like a night before or whatever.MoneyMay wrote:Question: Had he claimed a mistake/ accident defense, would this have been MIMIC and admissible?
Communicate now with those who not only know what a legal education is, but can offer you worthy advice and commentary as you complete the three most educational, yet challenging years of your law related post graduate life.
Register now, it's still FREE!
Already a member? Login
- Georgia Avenue
- Posts: 414
- Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2011 9:42 am
Re: Confusing Evidence Question
Depends what exactly the defense was, and how probative it would be - you'd likely run into a 403 problem.MoneyMay wrote:Question: Had he claimed a mistake/ accident defense, would this have been MIMIC and admissible?
- MoneyMay
- Posts: 257
- Joined: Mon May 12, 2014 2:59 am
Re: Confusing Evidence Question
403 aside I am trying to figure out where I goofed, and I am just making sure it's because he didn't claim mistake/ accident (again assuming the evidence would be relevant for that purpose and no 403 problem.)Georgia Avenue wrote:Depends what exactly the defense was, and how probative it would be - you'd likely run into a 403 problem.MoneyMay wrote:Question: Had he claimed a mistake/ accident defense, would this have been MIMIC and admissible?
Seriously? What are you waiting for?
Now there's a charge.
Just kidding ... it's still FREE!
Already a member? Login