A defendant is on trial for the alleged sexual assault of a victim. The prosecution seeks to introduce testimony from a witness who claims she was sexually assaulted by the same defendant five years prior in an unrelated incident. The defense objects to the introduction of this testimony. How is the court most likely to rule on the admissibility of the witness's testimony?
Inadmissible, because evidence of prior bad acts cannot be used to prove a defendant's propensity to commit the charged crime.
Inadmissible, because the prior act is too remote in time and its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.
Admissible, but only to prove the defendant's motive, intent, or plan, not to prove propensity.
Admissible to show the defendant's propensity to commit sexual assault.
The correct answer is that the evidence is likely admissible to show the defendant's propensity to commit sexual assault. Under Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) 413 and 414, which create a significant exception to the general prohibition on character evidence (FRE 404), evidence of a defendant's prior acts of sexual assault or child molestation is admissible in a criminal case for any matter to which it is relevant, including propensity. The other options are incorrect. While prior bad acts are generally inadmissible to prove propensity, FRE 413 creates a specific exception for sexual assault cases. The traditional 404(b) exceptions (motive, intent, etc.) are a separate basis for admissibility and are not the primary reason this specific evidence is allowed for propensity. Finally, while a court must still perform a Rule 403 balancing test, there is a presumption of probativeness for this type of evidence, and it is generally admissible unless the risk of unfair prejudice substantially outweighs its probative value.
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 Federal Rules of Evidence Rules 413 and 414?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
What is the difference between relevant evidence and propensity evidence?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
What does it mean for evidence to have probative value outweighing unfair prejudice?