Scribd
Upload
17 views1 page

State v. Bock Page 843

The document discusses the admissibility of prior similar act evidence in criminal cases. It notes that such evidence can be introduced by both the prosecution and defense. Specifically, the defense may introduce evidence of other potential suspects' prior similar acts to show someone else committed the charged crime. The crimes must be sufficiently similar and closely connected in time and place to be part of a common scheme or plan. A prior conviction is the strongest proof of a prior similar act, but eyewitness testimony or following the Huddleston rule can also establish such an act if there is no conviction.

Uploaded by

joeblue147
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
17 views1 page

State v. Bock Page 843

The document discusses the admissibility of prior similar act evidence in criminal cases. It notes that such evidence can be introduced by both the prosecution and defense. Specifically, the defense may introduce evidence of other potential suspects' prior similar acts to show someone else committed the charged crime. The crimes must be sufficiently similar and closely connected in time and place to be part of a common scheme or plan. A prior conviction is the strongest proof of a prior similar act, but eyewitness testimony or following the Huddleston rule can also establish such an act if there is no conviction.

Uploaded by

joeblue147
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 1

o

State v. Bock page 843 Doesnt have to be used only by prosecutor, the D can introduce prior similar act evidence that he is innocent This is by showing someone else did it Foraging blank checks While inadmissible to prove guilt it is clearly admissible to prove identity if the crimes are similar and closely connected in time and place. It is also admissible in order to show an ongoing scheme or plan Why is this admissible Are the crimes sufficiently similar to be a common scheme or plan two checks were part of stole group of checks The corut on appeal said that the D had right to rebut that inference Why is it usually used to show guilt Easier to focus on one person than the D having to look at other persons likely of committing the crime Next issue is of D using similar prior act evidence D arrested for kidnapping and murdering young adult teenage males D wanted to intro evidence that these persons were still disappearing after this guy was in jail Next point Huddelston Case A conviction is good proof of a prior similar act. If no conviction, use an eyewitness. If no eyewitness, follow the Huddleston (prosecutor wants to introduce evidence of an employee theft but there is no conviction--comes under MIMIC) rule: Kessler Note case Bathtub drowning case

You might also like