No area of law may be more vexing, and more subject to dispute, than the admission or exclusion of “other acts” evidence—often mis-labeled “prior bad acts” evidence—in criminal cases. Evidence of an “act” that only conveys the actor’s character is inadmissible; but evidence with a non-character purpose may be admissible, subject to a balancing test.
In its most recent decision on the application of these principles, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ended up with five opinions. That inability to speak in one voice shows discontent about current Rule 404(b) analysis and offers an invitation to future litigants to seek clarification and change.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
