Material omission from application-treatment for depression. At issue is the evidence of the deceased’s good character to rebut accusation that deceased lied. The evidence should be excluded. In Texas, it would have come in.

Evidence of pilot’s training records is challenged. Evidence was erroneously admitted but it was a bench trial so we aren’t going to reverse.

Defendant claimed self-defense in a roadside altercation. Was it error to refuse to admit evidence of P’s past hostility? Is the victim’s character an essential element of self-defense? No. In self-defense claims, the D’s knowledge of the victim’s aggressive character and specific acts may be admissible if D knew of violent acts (goes to his knowledge rather than victim’s propensity).

Texas-you could use acts of violence by victim to show propensity.

P seeks to exclude D’s driving record and reputation for carelessness. In a negligent entrustment case, these things are pertinent. Exclusion denied.

Character evidence is at issue in a civil case of- defamation, child custody, neg. hiring or supervision, fraud.

(b) May be admissible to show motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity or absence of mistake or accident, must give reas. notice.

At issue is evidence of conviction for commercial gambling to show he lived in house where drugs were found. 3-part test (1) relevant to an issue other than character, (2) sufficient to find that D committed the act (modus operandi, signature trait), (3) 403. This inference was a propensity one and not a signature trait.

Burden to show that the bad act occurred- less than an preponderance, even an acquittal can be used. Ct’s are reluctant to use arrests but you can use the facts.

Physician exchanging prescriptions for sex acts. Criminal charge was for illegally dispensing prescriptions. Sex acts were admissible to prove motive.

Needing money for drugs as a motive for robbing a bank is not admissible because it is a tenuous link. Must show substantial drug habit that he couldn’t afford.

Other acts are relevant to her defense of duress, crimes don’t have to be similar. Evidence admitted during prosecutor’s case in chief was okay because it was clear that the D would raise the issue of duress.

*Evidence should not have come in this way.

If other crimes are too similar it looks like it is going to prove propensity.

7 children died the same way while in her care. Evidence of other deaths are admissible to prove lack of an accident even though D did not claim accident. This falls under the signature trait and identity of the wrongdoer exceptions. Ct really creates a new exception here because there are too many coincidences and it is almost impossible for this to occur without her involvement.

When the balance between prejudicial and probative is close it should be let in unless it is not very important to the gov’t’s case.

Witness said that P used heating coils on prior occasions. One prior occasion would not be enough. This was properly admitted because this is a deliberate and repetitive practice.

How many times is enough to make it habit? Every time under the circumstances.

4 LEO’s recounted prior violent encounters with the D. There were 5 encounters and no non-violent encounters. Testimony of specific instances is allowed to show habit (unlike character).

Evidence that was sought to be brought in by D was evidence that victim was assaulted by other persons. The ct should have admitted this to prove an alternative explanation for the characteristics that are identified with children who have been abused and as an alternative to explain the bloody underwear.

* Must have in camera procedure before this evidence is admissible because we want to encourage victims to come forward and probative value is so thin and there may be an absence of physical evidence.

These exceptions are here because recidivism rates are higher and there are unique difficulties with proof and we don’t like these crimes.