In a criminal trial for armed robbery, the prosecution seeks to introduce evidence that the defendant had previously been convicted of burglary. The defense argues that this evidence should be excluded. Which most accurately explains why the court should exclude the prior burglary conviction?
The defendant's prior conviction has limited relevance to the current charge of armed robbery.
The prior conviction is admissible to prove the defendant's intent during the armed robbery.
The prior conviction is admissible because it demonstrates a pattern of criminal behavior.
The prior conviction is relevant but its probative value is outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice.
The correct answer is that the prior conviction is relevant but its probative value is outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice. Evidence of past convictions can be relevant to establishing intent, motive, or a pattern, but if its potential to unfairly sway the jury is greater than its usefulness, it should be excluded. Other options incorrectly assess the relevance or admissibility under different premises.
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 is probative value in the context of legal evidence?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
What does unfair prejudice mean in legal terms?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
Why might a court allow evidence of prior convictions in some cases?