quote:

It disturbs me that our system’s fundamental rules of a criminal trial have so much gray area that even a panel of 7 appellate judges make a decision on a 4-3 split.

Evidence of an uncharged prior bad act can be admitted not to prove guilt in the instant case, but to show knowledge or intent.

Louisiana's versions:

quote:
In order to show intent, evidence is admissible of similar acts, independent of the act charged as a crime in the indictment, for though intent is a question of fact, it need not be proven as a fact, it may be inferred from the circumstances of the transaction.

quote:
When knowledge or intent forms an essential part of the inquiry, testimony may be offered of such acts, conduct or declarations of the accused as tend to establish such knowledge or intent and where the offense is one of a system, evidence is admissible to prove the continuity of the offense, and the commission of similar offenses for the purpose of showing guilty knowledge and intent, but not to prove the offense charged.

All depends on the case and what one is trying to prove by using it.

2 ...

Report Post

Posted by MattA

Member since Nov 2019

1610 posts

Posted on 4/25/24 at 10:32 am to tLSU

Yep. No clue about New York but other bad acts can come into evidence if it meets certain criteria. If it was this guys MO to do this with ladies then decent chance it gets in. In LA anyway.

0 ...

Report Post

Posted by victoire sécurisé

Member since Nov 2012

4957 posts

Posted on 4/25/24 at 11:59 am to tLSU

quote:
All depends on the case and what one is trying to prove by using it.

The fact that the 7 judges split 4-3 tells me that it depends far too much on interpretation.

When seven experienced legal scholars have a differing opinion on such a fundamental legal principle, it should be taken as a glowing neon sign that the language of the law needs to be refined. Lawmakers need to do better.

0 ...

Report Post

O-T Lounge - Replies to Post

Return To Board

Page 1

Return To Board