Bar Exam (Uniform) Quiz: Other Acts Evidence
20 questions · exam conditions
0:00
Other Acts EvidenceQuestion 1 of 20

A corporation's chief financial officer (CFO) is on trial for securities fraud. The government alleges that the CFO knowingly signed off on false financial statements to inflate the company's stock price. The CFO claims he was unaware of the inaccuracies and relied on the company's auditors. The government seeks to introduce evidence that five years earlier, at a different company, the CFO was formally reprimanded for pressuring auditors to approve questionable accounting practices.

Is the evidence of the prior reprimand likely admissible? Select one.

No, because a formal reprimand is not a criminal conviction and is therefore not admissible under FRE 404(b).
Yes, to show that the CFO has a dishonest character and a propensity to commit financial crimes.
No, because the prior act occurred at a different company and is therefore irrelevant to the current charges.
Yes, to demonstrate the CFO's knowledge of accounting improprieties and to rebut his claim of mistake or lack of intent.
← Back to quizzes

Bar Exam (Uniform) Quiz

Bar Exam (Uniform) Quiz: Other Acts Evidence

Practice Other Acts Evidence in Bar Exam (Uniform) with focused quiz questions that help you check what you know, review explanations, and build confidence with test-style prompts.

What this quiz covers

This quiz focuses on Other Acts Evidence, giving you a quick way to practice the rules, question types, and explanations that matter most for Bar Exam (Uniform).

How to use this quiz

Try each quiz question before looking at the correct answer. Use the explanations to review missed ideas, then come back to similar questions until the pattern feels familiar.

All questions

Question 1

A corporation's chief financial officer (CFO) is on trial for securities fraud. The government alleges that the CFO knowingly signed off on false financial statements to inflate the company's stock price. The CFO claims he was unaware of the inaccuracies and relied on the company's auditors. The government seeks to introduce evidence that five years earlier, at a different company, the CFO was formally reprimanded for pressuring auditors to approve questionable accounting practices.

Is the evidence of the prior reprimand likely admissible? Select one.

  1. No, because a formal reprimand is not a criminal conviction and is therefore not admissible under FRE 404(b).
  2. Yes, to show that the CFO has a dishonest character and a propensity to commit financial crimes.
  3. No, because the prior act occurred at a different company and is therefore irrelevant to the current charges.
  4. Yes, to demonstrate the CFO's knowledge of accounting improprieties and to rebut his claim of mistake or lack of intent. (correct answer)
Explanation: When you encounter evidence questions involving prior bad acts, focus on Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b), which prohibits using such evidence to show character or propensity, but allows it for other purposes like proving knowledge, intent, or absence of mistake. Here, the CFO's defense is that he was unaware of the accounting inaccuracies and relied on auditors. The prior reprimand for pressuring auditors to approve questionable practices directly rebuts this claim by showing he has specific knowledge about accounting improprieties and how auditors operate. This makes the evidence highly relevant to prove his knowledge and negate his mistake defense—both permissible purposes under Rule 404(b). Answer A is wrong because it misunderstands Rule 404(b). The rule doesn't require a criminal conviction; it applies to any "other acts" and focuses on the purpose of the evidence, not its form. A formal reprimand qualifies as an "other act." Answer B is incorrect because it describes exactly what Rule 404(b) prohibits—using prior acts to show dishonest character and propensity to commit crimes. This would be impermissible character evidence. Answer C fails because occurring at a different company doesn't make the evidence irrelevant. The location is less important than what the prior act demonstrates about the CFO's knowledge and experience with accounting manipulation. Remember: Rule 404(b) evidence is admissible when it serves a specific, non-character purpose that's relevant to the case. Always ask whether the evidence proves something other than "defendant is a bad person who likely did it again."

Question 2

You are representing a plaintiff in a housing discrimination lawsuit. Your client, who is Hispanic, claims a landlord refused to rent an apartment to him based on his national origin. The landlord asserts the refusal was due to your client's poor credit history. You seek to introduce the testimony of three other prospective tenants, all of whom are also Hispanic, who will state that the same landlord also refused to rent to them within the last year, despite their excellent credit scores.

Is the testimony of the other three prospective tenants likely admissible? Select one.

  1. Yes, to show a pattern of discrimination that proves the landlord's stated reason was a pretext and demonstrates discriminatory intent. (correct answer)
  2. Yes, to establish that the landlord has a discriminatory character and acted in conformity with that character when dealing with your client.
  3. No, because the landlord's dealings with other people are not relevant to the specific transaction involving your client.
  4. No, because this is a civil case, and evidence of other bad acts is only admissible in criminal proceedings.
Explanation: The correct answer is A. FRE 404(b) applies in civil cases. The evidence of the landlord's similar conduct towards other members of the same protected class is not offered to prove the landlord's general character. Instead, it is offered for the permissible purposes of proving discriminatory intent and showing that the landlord's proffered non-discriminatory reason (poor credit) is a pretext. This is a form of proving intent and absence of mistake. Choice B is incorrect because it uses the forbidden 'propensity' language. Choice C is incorrect because the other instances are highly relevant to establish a pattern, which is crucial in discrimination cases. Choice D is incorrect because FRE 404(b) explicitly applies in both civil and criminal cases.

Question 3

A defendant is charged with bank robbery. His defense is that he was at home, miles away from the bank, at the time of the robbery. The prosecution seeks to introduce the defendant's 15-year-old conviction for shoplifting a candy bar.

Is the prior conviction for shoplifting likely to be admitted? Select one.

  1. Yes, to show the defendant's general disrespect for the law and criminal propensity.
  2. Yes, to prove the defendant's intent to permanently deprive the bank of its property.
  3. No, because the prior conviction is for a dissimilar crime and is too remote in time to be relevant for any non-propensity purpose. (correct answer)
  4. No, because convictions more than 10 years old are automatically inadmissible for any purpose under the Federal Rules.
Explanation: The correct answer is C. The prior conviction for shoplifting is inadmissible. First, it is being offered for no discernible purpose under FRE 404(b) other than to show propensity. It does not relate to identity, plan, motive, etc. Second, the crime of minor shoplifting is so dissimilar to armed bank robbery that it has virtually no probative value. Third, its remoteness in time (15 years) further diminishes any potential probative value. Its admission would be highly prejudicial and serve only the forbidden purpose of suggesting the defendant is a 'bad person.' Choice A states the forbidden propensity purpose. Choice B is incorrect because the defendant's defense is alibi, not lack of intent, and shoplifting a candy bar has no logical bearing on intent in a bank robbery. Choice D incorrectly states the law; the 10-year rule in FRE 609 applies to impeachment, not substantively-offered evidence under FRE 404(b), which is subject to a more general FRE 403 balancing test.

Question 4

A defendant is charged with battery. The defendant's sole defense is misidentification; he claims he was not the person who committed the battery. The prosecution seeks to introduce evidence of the defendant's prior conviction for an unrelated battery to 'prove his intent to commit battery.'

How should the court rule on the admissibility of the prior conviction? Select one.

  1. Admit it, because intent is an element of the crime of battery, which the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
  2. Admit it, because the prior conviction is relevant to prove the defendant's identity as the perpetrator.
  3. Exclude it, because the defendant's defense of misidentification does not put his intent at issue. (correct answer)
  4. Exclude it, because a prior conviction can only be used for impeachment purposes if the defendant testifies.
Explanation: The correct answer is C. For other acts evidence to be admissible for a purpose like 'intent,' that purpose must actually be a disputed issue in the case. Here, the defendant is not claiming he acted accidentally or without intent; he is claiming he was not there at all. His defense of misidentification does not put his state of mind at issue. Therefore, offering the prior conviction to prove 'intent' is merely a pretext for introducing prejudicial propensity evidence. Choice A is incorrect because even if intent is a formal element, it is not a matter of consequence in this trial, so the evidence is not relevant for that purpose. Choice B is incorrect because a single prior battery, without any unique signature, is not admissible to prove identity. Choice D incorrectly conflates FRE 404(b) with FRE 609 (impeachment).

Question 5

A plaintiff sues a police officer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging the officer used excessive force during an arrest. The officer defends by stating that his use of force was a reasonable response to a perceived threat. The plaintiff seeks to introduce evidence that the officer was disciplined by the police department five years earlier for failing to follow de-escalation protocols in a different incident.

What is the plaintiff's strongest argument for admitting the evidence of the prior disciplinary action? Select one.

  1. The evidence is admissible to show the officer has a character for violence and a propensity to use excessive force.
  2. The evidence is admissible to impeach the officer's credibility as a witness.
  3. The evidence is inadmissible because it is a subsequent remedial measure taken by the police department.
  4. The evidence is admissible to show the officer had knowledge of the proper protocols and intentionally disregarded them, proving his intent. (correct answer)
Explanation: When you encounter evidence questions in § 1983 excessive force cases, focus on the specific purpose for which the evidence is being offered and whether it fits within recognized exceptions to the general prohibition on character evidence. The correct answer is D because the evidence serves to prove the officer's knowledge and intent rather than general character. Since the officer claims his force was reasonable in response to a perceived threat, the plaintiff can counter by showing the officer knew proper de-escalation protocols but chose not to follow them. The prior disciplinary action for failing to follow these same protocols demonstrates the officer was aware of the correct procedures, making his current actions appear deliberate rather than mistaken. This goes directly to the officer's state of mind and intent, which are key elements in excessive force claims. Answer A is wrong because this would be impermissible character evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b). You cannot introduce prior bad acts simply to show someone has a propensity for violence or excessive force. Answer B is incorrect because impeachment typically involves attacking credibility through bias, prior convictions, or inconsistent statements. A disciplinary action for protocol violations doesn't directly impeach the officer's truthfulness as a witness. Answer C misapplies the subsequent remedial measures rule. That rule excludes evidence of fixes made after an incident to encourage safety improvements. Here, the disciplinary action itself is the relevant evidence, not any departmental policy changes. Remember: In § 1983 cases, prior incidents are often admissible not to show character, but to prove knowledge, intent, or deliberate indifference—key elements that distinguish constitutional violations from mere negligence.

Question 6

A defendant is on trial for conspiracy to distribute cocaine. The prosecution's key witness is a co-conspirator who has agreed to testify against the defendant. On cross-examination, the defense attorney plans to question the witness about his two prior convictions for perjury.

Is the defense attorney permitted to ask the witness about his prior perjury convictions? Select one.

  1. No, because the convictions are unfairly prejudicial to the prosecution's case.
  2. Yes, because under FRE 404(b), the prior acts of perjury are admissible to show the witness's motive to lie in this case.
  3. No, because evidence of a witness's prior bad acts is inadmissible character evidence.
  4. Yes, because under FRE 609, convictions for crimes involving dishonesty or false statement are automatically admissible to attack a witness's character for truthfulness. (correct answer)
Explanation: When you encounter questions about impeaching witnesses with prior convictions, focus on Federal Rule of Evidence 609, which governs when criminal convictions can be used to attack a witness's credibility. Under FRE 609(a)(2), evidence of any criminal conviction is admissible if the crime involved dishonesty or false statement, regardless of the punishment. Perjury is a quintessential crime of dishonesty, directly relating to truthfulness under oath. Since this witness has two perjury convictions, the defense can automatically use them to impeach his credibility—no balancing test is required. Answer D correctly identifies this rule. The convictions are "automatically admissible" because perjury involves dishonesty, making them directly relevant to the witness's character for truthfulness. Answer A is wrong because unfair prejudice under FRE 403 doesn't apply to FRE 609(a)(2) convictions. Crimes involving dishonesty are deemed so probative of truthfulness that prejudice concerns are overridden. Answer B misapplies FRE 404(b), which deals with using prior acts to prove motive, opportunity, or intent—not witness credibility. While the rule mentions "motive to lie," that's not the correct framework here. Answer C incorrectly suggests prior bad acts are categorically inadmissible. While FRE 404(a) generally prohibits character evidence, FRE 609 creates a specific exception for attacking witness credibility with certain convictions. Remember: For bar exam evidence questions, distinguish between the different rules. FRE 609 specifically governs impeachment with convictions, and crimes involving dishonesty get special treatment—they're automatically admissible regardless of prejudice.

Question 7

A defendant is on trial for possession of heroin with intent to distribute. Police found a large quantity of heroin and packaging materials in his apartment. The defendant claims that he is a heavy user and that the entire quantity was for his personal consumption, not for sale. The prosecution seeks to introduce evidence that the defendant has two prior convictions within the last three years for selling heroin.

Is the evidence of the defendant's prior convictions likely to be admitted? Select one.

  1. Yes, because the prior convictions are relevant to prove the defendant's intent to distribute the heroin found in his apartment. (correct answer)
  2. Yes, because the evidence shows the defendant has a character for dealing drugs and likely acted in conformity with that character.
  3. No, because prior convictions are only admissible to impeach the defendant's credibility if he chooses to testify.
  4. No, because the probative value of the prior convictions is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.
Explanation: The correct answer is A. Under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b), evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove a person's character to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character. However, it may be admissible for another purpose, such as proving intent. Here, the defendant has made his intent a central issue by claiming the drugs were for personal use. The prior convictions for selling the same drug are highly probative of his intent to distribute this time. Choice B is incorrect because it states the prohibited propensity purpose. Choice C is incorrect because it confuses FRE 404(b) with FRE 609, which governs impeachment by prior conviction. Choice D is incorrect because while a FRE 403 analysis is required, the evidence is highly probative on the key disputed issue of intent, so a court is likely to find that its probative value is not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice.

Question 8

You are representing a plaintiff in a housing discrimination lawsuit. Your client, who is Hispanic, claims a landlord refused to rent an apartment to him based on his national origin. The landlord asserts the refusal was due to your client's poor credit history. You seek to introduce the testimony of three other prospective tenants, all of whom are also Hispanic, who will state that the same landlord also refused to rent to them within the last year, despite their excellent credit scores.

Is the testimony of the other three prospective tenants likely admissible? Select one.

  1. Yes, to show a pattern of discrimination that proves the landlord's stated reason was a pretext and demonstrates discriminatory intent. (correct answer)
  2. Yes, to establish that the landlord has a discriminatory character and acted in conformity with that character when dealing with your client.
  3. No, because the landlord's dealings with other people are not relevant to the specific transaction involving your client.
  4. No, because this is a civil case, and evidence of other bad acts is only admissible in criminal proceedings.
Explanation: The correct answer is A. FRE 404(b) applies in civil cases. The evidence of the landlord's similar conduct towards other members of the same protected class is not offered to prove the landlord's general character. Instead, it is offered for the permissible purposes of proving discriminatory intent and showing that the landlord's proffered non-discriminatory reason (poor credit) is a pretext. This is a form of proving intent and absence of mistake. Choice B is incorrect because it uses the forbidden 'propensity' language. Choice C is incorrect because the other instances are highly relevant to establish a pattern, which is crucial in discrimination cases. Choice D is incorrect because FRE 404(b) explicitly applies in both civil and criminal cases.

Question 9

A defendant is on trial for burglary, and his defense is that a different person, a known local thief, committed the crime. To support this theory, the defense seeks to offer testimony that the known thief committed two other burglaries in the same neighborhood, on the same night, using a distinctive method of entry that was also used in the charged offense.

How should the court rule on the admissibility of the defense's proffered testimony? Select one.

  1. Admit the evidence, because it is relevant to show that a third party had the motive and opportunity to commit the crime.
  2. Admit the evidence, as it tends to prove the identity of the perpetrator through a unique modus operandi, and the risk of prejudice to the defendant is absent. (correct answer)
  3. Exclude the evidence, because character evidence concerning a third-party non-witness is inadmissible.
  4. Exclude the evidence, because its admission would confuse the issues and waste time by creating a 'trial within a trial' about the third party's conduct.
Explanation: The correct answer is B. This is an example of 'reverse 404(b)' evidence, where the defendant seeks to introduce evidence of a third party's other acts to show that the third party committed the charged crime. The standards for admissibility are relaxed because the primary concern of FRE 404(b)—prejudice against the defendant—is not implicated. The evidence of the other burglaries with the same distinctive method is highly relevant to prove the identity of the actual burglar. Choice A is less precise; while opportunity might be relevant, the key value here is identity via M.O. Choice C misstates the law; reverse 404(b) is a valid and recognized use of such evidence. Choice D states a potential FRE 403 concern, but in this context, the evidence is so highly probative of the defendant's primary defense that it is very unlikely to be excluded on these grounds.

Question 10

A defendant is charged with bank robbery. His defense is that he was at home, miles away from the bank, at the time of the robbery. The prosecution seeks to introduce the defendant's 15-year-old conviction for shoplifting a candy bar.

Is the prior conviction for shoplifting likely to be admitted? Select one.

  1. Yes, to show the defendant's general disrespect for the law and criminal propensity.
  2. Yes, to prove the defendant's intent to permanently deprive the bank of its property.
  3. No, because the prior conviction is for a dissimilar crime and is too remote in time to be relevant for any non-propensity purpose. (correct answer)
  4. No, because convictions more than 10 years old are automatically inadmissible for any purpose under the Federal Rules.
Explanation: The correct answer is C. The prior conviction for shoplifting is inadmissible. First, it is being offered for no discernible purpose under FRE 404(b) other than to show propensity. It does not relate to identity, plan, motive, etc. Second, the crime of minor shoplifting is so dissimilar to armed bank robbery that it has virtually no probative value. Third, its remoteness in time (15 years) further diminishes any potential probative value. Its admission would be highly prejudicial and serve only the forbidden purpose of suggesting the defendant is a 'bad person.' Choice A states the forbidden propensity purpose. Choice B is incorrect because the defendant's defense is alibi, not lack of intent, and shoplifting a candy bar has no logical bearing on intent in a bank robbery. Choice D incorrectly states the law; the 10-year rule in FRE 609 applies to impeachment, not substantively-offered evidence under FRE 404(b), which is subject to a more general FRE 403 balancing test.

Question 11

A defendant is on trial for burglary, and his defense is that a different person, a known local thief, committed the crime. To support this theory, the defense seeks to offer testimony that the known thief committed two other burglaries in the same neighborhood, on the same night, using a distinctive method of entry that was also used in the charged offense.

How should the court rule on the admissibility of the defense's proffered testimony? Select one.

  1. Admit the evidence, because it is relevant to show that a third party had the motive and opportunity to commit the crime.
  2. Admit the evidence, as it tends to prove the identity of the perpetrator through a unique modus operandi, and the risk of prejudice to the defendant is absent. (correct answer)
  3. Exclude the evidence, because character evidence concerning a third-party non-witness is inadmissible.
  4. Exclude the evidence, because its admission would confuse the issues and waste time by creating a 'trial within a trial' about the third party's conduct.
Explanation: The correct answer is B. This is an example of 'reverse 404(b)' evidence, where the defendant seeks to introduce evidence of a third party's other acts to show that the third party committed the charged crime. The standards for admissibility are relaxed because the primary concern of FRE 404(b)—prejudice against the defendant—is not implicated. The evidence of the other burglaries with the same distinctive method is highly relevant to prove the identity of the actual burglar. Choice A is less precise; while opportunity might be relevant, the key value here is identity via M.O. Choice C misstates the law; reverse 404(b) is a valid and recognized use of such evidence. Choice D states a potential FRE 403 concern, but in this context, the evidence is so highly probative of the defendant's primary defense that it is very unlikely to be excluded on these grounds.

Question 12

A man is on trial for receiving stolen property, specifically a collection of rare stamps. The man, an amateur stamp collector, claims he bought the collection at a garage sale for a low price and had no idea it was stolen. The prosecution seeks to introduce evidence that the man was formerly a professional art and collectibles appraiser who specialized in identifying stolen items for insurance companies.

Is the evidence of the man's former profession admissible? Select one.

  1. Yes, because it is relevant to prove he had the specialized knowledge to recognize that the stamps were likely stolen. (correct answer)
  2. Yes, because it shows he has a bad character and an inclination to deal with stolen goods.
  3. No, because his former profession is not a crime, wrong, or other act covered by FRE 404(b).
  4. No, because the evidence is irrelevant unless the prosecution can prove he previously appraised these specific stamps.
Explanation: The correct answer is A. The defendant has put his knowledge at issue by claiming he did not know the stamps were stolen. Evidence of his past profession as an expert in identifying stolen collectibles is admissible under FRE 404(b) for the non-propensity purpose of proving he possessed the requisite knowledge to know the goods were stolen, thereby rebutting his defense. Choice B is incorrect because it describes an impermissible propensity inference. Choice C is incorrect because FRE 404(b) applies to any 'other act,' not just crimes or wrongs; his prior professional work is an 'act' that is relevant to his knowledge. Choice D sets too high a standard; the evidence is relevant to his general knowledge and expertise, which bears on his state of mind in the current transaction.

Question 13

A corporation is sued by a former employee for wrongful termination based on age discrimination. The corporation claims the employee was fired for poor performance. The employee seeks to introduce evidence that after he was fired, the corporation implemented a new company-wide 'early retirement' program that offered financial incentives for employees over the age of 55 to leave.

Is the evidence of the subsequent early retirement program admissible to support the employee's claim? Select one.

  1. No, this is evidence of a subsequent remedial measure, which is inadmissible to prove culpable conduct.
  2. Yes, as evidence of a pattern and practice of age discrimination by the corporation, which is relevant to proving discriminatory motive. (correct answer)
  3. No, because the program was implemented after the employee was fired and is therefore not relevant to the reason for his termination.
  4. Yes, because it shows the corporation has a character for discriminating against older workers.
Explanation: When you encounter evidence questions involving workplace discrimination, you need to distinguish between different types of subsequent conduct and their admissibility purposes. The key is understanding what the evidence is being offered to prove. Evidence of the corporation's post-termination early retirement program targeting employees over 55 is admissible as proof of a pattern and practice of age discrimination. This subsequent conduct is relevant because it demonstrates the corporation's discriminatory motive and attitude toward older workers, which supports the employee's claim that age, not performance, was the real reason for his termination. Pattern and practice evidence helps establish discriminatory intent, which is often the central issue in employment discrimination cases. Looking at the wrong answers: (A) incorrectly applies the subsequent remedial measures rule, which typically covers safety improvements or policy changes made to prevent future harm—not discriminatory programs that continue the alleged misconduct. (C) is wrong because evidence doesn't need to be contemporaneous to be relevant; subsequent conduct can illuminate the employer's mindset and practices that likely existed during the plaintiff's employment. (D) uses incorrect character evidence reasoning—this isn't about the corporation's general character, but about specific evidence of discriminatory practices. The correct answer is (B) because the early retirement program constitutes admissible pattern and practice evidence of age discrimination. Study tip: In discrimination cases, distinguish between subsequent remedial measures (inadmissible to prove fault) and subsequent conduct that demonstrates ongoing discriminatory patterns (generally admissible to prove motive). Focus on what the evidence is being used to prove.

Question 14

In a prosecution for solicitation of a minor over the internet, the defendant asserts the defense of entrapment. He claims that he was not predisposed to commit such a crime and was improperly induced by an undercover officer posing as a teenager. To rebut this defense, the prosecution seeks to introduce evidence from the defendant's computer showing he had previously visited websites catering to individuals with a sexual interest in minors.

Is the evidence of the defendant's internet browsing history admissible? Select one.

  1. No, because the evidence is extremely prejudicial and has no probative value regarding his interactions with the undercover officer.
  2. Yes, because the browsing history proves the defendant has a bad character and is the type of person who would commit such a crime.
  3. No, because a person's thoughts or interests, as reflected in browsing history, are not 'acts' under FRE 404(b).
  4. Yes, because by raising an entrapment defense, the defendant puts his predisposition at issue, and this evidence is relevant to rebut his claim. (correct answer)
Explanation: When you encounter evidence questions involving character evidence and criminal defenses, focus on how the defendant's choice of defense strategy affects what evidence becomes admissible. The key principle here is that by asserting an entrapment defense, the defendant fundamentally changes what's relevant in the case. Entrapment has two essential elements: government inducement and lack of predisposition to commit the crime. When a defendant claims he wasn't predisposed to commit the offense, he directly puts his mental state and inclinations at issue. This opens the door for the prosecution to introduce evidence that would normally be prohibited under character evidence rules. The browsing history is relevant and admissible because it directly rebuts the defendant's claim of lack of predisposition. Courts consistently hold that evidence of similar interests or prior conduct becomes admissible when a defendant's predisposition is contested in an entrapment defense. Choice A is wrong because the evidence has clear probative value regarding predisposition, which is central to the entrapment defense. Choice B incorrectly characterizes this as general character evidence to show criminal propensity - that would indeed be prohibited. Choice C misunderstands the application of FRE 404(b); while browsing itself may be passive, it demonstrates intent and predisposition, making it relevant to the defense raised. The "acts" requirement doesn't bar this evidence when predisposition is at issue. Remember this pattern: defendants who raise certain defenses (like entrapment or self-defense) "open the door" to evidence that would otherwise be inadmissible. The defense strategy determines the scope of admissible rebuttal evidence.

Question 15

A defendant is charged with embezzlement from his employer. The prosecution's evidence shows that the defendant, a payroll clerk, created a 'ghost employee' in the company's system and directed salary payments to a bank account he controlled. The prosecution seeks to introduce evidence that the defendant had recently purchased a luxury sports car and a yacht, acts that occurred during the period of the alleged embezzlement.

Is the evidence of the defendant's lavish purchases admissible? Select one.

  1. Yes, as evidence of a financial motive for the embezzlement. (correct answer)
  2. Yes, to show that the defendant has an irresponsible character and a propensity to live beyond his means.
  3. No, because the defendant's spending habits are not a 'crime, wrong, or act' within the meaning of FRE 404(b).
  4. No, because the evidence is not being offered for a purpose like proving intent, identity, or absence of mistake.
Explanation: The correct answer is A. In financial crime cases, evidence of a defendant's sudden acquisition of wealth or lavish spending during the time of the alleged crime is generally admissible to show motive. The desire to fund an expensive lifestyle can be the motive for the embezzlement. This is a recognized non-propensity purpose. Choice B states an impermissible character/propensity argument. Choice C is incorrect; FRE 404(b) is interpreted broadly to include any 'acts,' not just illegal or immoral ones, that are relevant to a non-propensity purpose. Choice D is incorrect because motive is an explicitly listed permissible purpose under FRE 404(b).

Question 16

A restaurant owner is charged with arson after his failing business was destroyed by a fire. The owner testifies that the fire must have been an accident, possibly caused by faulty kitchen wiring. To rebut this claim, the prosecution seeks to introduce evidence that on two separate occasions in the past ten years, other struggling businesses owned by the defendant were destroyed by fires of suspicious origin, and the defendant collected substantial insurance proceeds each time.

On what basis would this evidence most likely be admitted? Select one.

  1. To prove the defendant's character as an arsonist.
  2. To impeach the defendant by showing prior dishonest acts.
  3. To demonstrate absence of mistake or accident under the doctrine of chances. (correct answer)
  4. To establish the defendant's habit of resolving financial difficulties with fire.
Explanation: The correct answer is C. The defendant has specifically claimed the fire was an accident. The evidence of prior, similar fires under similar financial circumstances is admissible under FRE 404(b) to show that the current fire was not an accident or mistake. The 'doctrine of chances' posits that it is highly improbable for a person to be the innocent victim of the same rare, accidental event multiple times. Choice A is incorrect as it states the forbidden propensity purpose. Choice B is incorrect because this is not the primary purpose; the evidence is offered as substantive proof, not just for impeachment. Choice D is incorrect because three instances over ten years is unlikely to meet the high threshold for 'habit' evidence under FRE 406, which requires a more specific and routine practice.

Question 17

A defendant is charged with robbing a convenience store at gunpoint. At trial, the store clerk testifies that the robber said, 'This is a stick-up, just like the one I pulled on Second Street last week.' The defendant objects to the clerk repeating the robber's statement about the 'Second Street' robbery, arguing it is inadmissible evidence of a prior bad act.

How should the court rule on the defendant's objection? Select one.

  1. Sustain the objection, because the reference to a prior robbery is inadmissible character evidence under FRE 404(b).
  2. Overrule the objection, because the statement is not being offered to prove the defendant committed the prior robbery, but as part of the res gestae of the charged crime. (correct answer)
  3. Sustain the objection, because the statement is hearsay not within any exception.
  4. Overrule the objection, because the statement qualifies as a statement against interest, a hearsay exception.
Explanation: This question tests your understanding of when prior bad act evidence is admissible and how to distinguish between different grounds for exclusion. When a defendant's own statement references a prior crime, you need to analyze whether it's being offered for character purposes or as part of the immediate offense. The court should overrule the objection because the robber's statement is being offered as part of the res gestae (the circumstances surrounding the charged crime), not to prove the defendant actually committed the prior robbery. The statement is relevant to show what happened during this robbery - the robber's words are part of the criminal act itself. The prosecution isn't trying to establish that a Second Street robbery occurred or that defendant committed it; they're presenting the complete picture of what the robber said during the charged offense. Choice A incorrectly assumes this falls under FRE 404(b)'s prohibition on character evidence. However, 404(b) doesn't apply here because the prior robbery isn't being offered to show defendant's propensity to commit crimes - it's offered as part of what transpired during the charged offense. Choice C misapplies hearsay rules. While the statement would be hearsay if offered to prove the truth of the prior robbery claim, it's being offered to show what was said during the robbery, making the truth of the prior incident irrelevant. Choice D incorrectly identifies a hearsay exception. Statements against interest require the declarant to be unavailable, and the robber admitting to crimes doesn't necessarily qualify since criminals often boast about past exploits. Remember: when prior bad acts are mentioned in a defendant's own words during the charged crime, focus on the purpose - are they part of the immediate offense or being used for character evidence?

Question 18

A corporation is sued by a former employee for wrongful termination based on age discrimination. The corporation claims the employee was fired for poor performance. The employee seeks to introduce evidence that after he was fired, the corporation implemented a new company-wide 'early retirement' program that offered financial incentives for employees over the age of 55 to leave.

Is the evidence of the subsequent early retirement program admissible to support the employee's claim? Select one.

  1. No, this is evidence of a subsequent remedial measure, which is inadmissible to prove culpable conduct.
  2. Yes, as evidence of a pattern and practice of age discrimination by the corporation, which is relevant to proving discriminatory motive. (correct answer)
  3. No, because the program was implemented after the employee was fired and is therefore not relevant to the reason for his termination.
  4. Yes, because it shows the corporation has a character for discriminating against older workers.
Explanation: When you encounter evidence questions involving workplace discrimination, you need to distinguish between different types of subsequent conduct and their admissibility purposes. The key is understanding what the evidence is being offered to prove. Evidence of the corporation's post-termination early retirement program targeting employees over 55 is admissible as proof of a pattern and practice of age discrimination. This subsequent conduct is relevant because it demonstrates the corporation's discriminatory motive and attitude toward older workers, which supports the employee's claim that age, not performance, was the real reason for his termination. Pattern and practice evidence helps establish discriminatory intent, which is often the central issue in employment discrimination cases. Looking at the wrong answers: (A) incorrectly applies the subsequent remedial measures rule, which typically covers safety improvements or policy changes made to prevent future harm—not discriminatory programs that continue the alleged misconduct. (C) is wrong because evidence doesn't need to be contemporaneous to be relevant; subsequent conduct can illuminate the employer's mindset and practices that likely existed during the plaintiff's employment. (D) uses incorrect character evidence reasoning—this isn't about the corporation's general character, but about specific evidence of discriminatory practices. The correct answer is (B) because the early retirement program constitutes admissible pattern and practice evidence of age discrimination. Study tip: In discrimination cases, distinguish between subsequent remedial measures (inadmissible to prove fault) and subsequent conduct that demonstrates ongoing discriminatory patterns (generally admissible to prove motive). Focus on what the evidence is being used to prove.

Question 19

A defendant is charged with embezzlement from his employer. The prosecution's evidence shows that the defendant, a payroll clerk, created a 'ghost employee' in the company's system and directed salary payments to a bank account he controlled. The prosecution seeks to introduce evidence that the defendant had recently purchased a luxury sports car and a yacht, acts that occurred during the period of the alleged embezzlement.

Is the evidence of the defendant's lavish purchases admissible? Select one.

  1. Yes, as evidence of a financial motive for the embezzlement. (correct answer)
  2. Yes, to show that the defendant has an irresponsible character and a propensity to live beyond his means.
  3. No, because the defendant's spending habits are not a 'crime, wrong, or act' within the meaning of FRE 404(b).
  4. No, because the evidence is not being offered for a purpose like proving intent, identity, or absence of mistake.
Explanation: The correct answer is A. In financial crime cases, evidence of a defendant's sudden acquisition of wealth or lavish spending during the time of the alleged crime is generally admissible to show motive. The desire to fund an expensive lifestyle can be the motive for the embezzlement. This is a recognized non-propensity purpose. Choice B states an impermissible character/propensity argument. Choice C is incorrect; FRE 404(b) is interpreted broadly to include any 'acts,' not just illegal or immoral ones, that are relevant to a non-propensity purpose. Choice D is incorrect because motive is an explicitly listed permissible purpose under FRE 404(b).

Question 20

A defendant is on trial for possession of heroin with intent to distribute. Police found a large quantity of heroin and packaging materials in his apartment. The defendant claims that he is a heavy user and that the entire quantity was for his personal consumption, not for sale. The prosecution seeks to introduce evidence that the defendant has two prior convictions within the last three years for selling heroin.

Is the evidence of the defendant's prior convictions likely to be admitted? Select one.

  1. Yes, because the prior convictions are relevant to prove the defendant's intent to distribute the heroin found in his apartment. (correct answer)
  2. Yes, because the evidence shows the defendant has a character for dealing drugs and likely acted in conformity with that character.
  3. No, because prior convictions are only admissible to impeach the defendant's credibility if he chooses to testify.
  4. No, because the probative value of the prior convictions is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.
Explanation: The correct answer is A. Under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b), evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove a person's character to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character. However, it may be admissible for another purpose, such as proving intent. Here, the defendant has made his intent a central issue by claiming the drugs were for personal use. The prior convictions for selling the same drug are highly probative of his intent to distribute this time. Choice B is incorrect because it states the prohibited propensity purpose. Choice C is incorrect because it confuses FRE 404(b) with FRE 609, which governs impeachment by prior conviction. Choice D is incorrect because while a FRE 403 analysis is required, the evidence is highly probative on the key disputed issue of intent, so a court is likely to find that its probative value is not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice.