Evidence Admissibility In Court

Summary

In Maryland, prior acts evidence may be admissible to establish a pattern or modus operandi if relevant to identity, but must be balanced against unfair prejudice. In civil cases, specific conduct instances are generally inadmissible unless showing a relevant pattern. Habit evidence can be admissible if it demonstrates a consistent behavior pattern, not requiring invariability.

Full Conversation

what is the answer - this is form GMU quizz
In Maryland, evidence of prior acts can be admissible to establish a pattern or modus operandi if it is relevant to proving a specific issue, such as identity. However, it must be weighed against the potential for unfair prejudice. Therefore, the correct statement would be:
- The evidence is admissible unless the court finds that the probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.
In a civil action by the P against D for battery during a professional basketball game, D had been cheering for the visiting team when P asked him to “cut it out.” P claims D then punched P. D claims he never touched P. To prove his defense, D calls W to testify that she was with D at another game when D cheered for the visiting team, that a home team fan asked D to stop, and that D just shrugged it off. P objects. Which of the following statements is correct? o The evidence is admissible character evidence. o The evidence is admissible habit evidence. o The evidence is inadmissible because it is offered in the form of specific instances or conduct rather than reputation or opinion. o The evidence is inadmissible because D may not use character evidence to support her defense in this situation.
In the civil action scenario you mentioned, the correct statement would be:
- The evidence is inadmissible because it is offered in the form of specific instances or conduct rather than reputation or opinion.
In civil cases, specific instances of conduct are generally not admissible to prove character unless they show a pattern or habit that is directly relevant to the case at hand.
In a negligence action by P against D, P claims that D failed to yield the right of way at an intersection and smashed into P. To prove that D failed to yield, P calls W to testify that a number of D’s friends told her that D frequently drives through that intersection and almost always fails to yield. D objects. Which of the following statements is incorrect? o W’s testimony is inadmissible because character is not admissible in this situation. o W’s testimony is inadmissible because behavior will only constitute a habit if it is repeated invariably. o W’s testimony is inadmissible as hearsay. o W’s testimony is inadmissible as habit evidence.
Case Rating: *
In the negligence action scenario you mentioned, the incorrect statement would be:
- "W’s testimony is inadmissible as habit evidence."
This is because habit evidence can be admissible if it shows a consistent and semi-automatic pattern of behavior, which does not necessarily need to be repeated invariably.