Evidence-Wellborn SU2006 Outline

D challenges the constitutionality of section 566025

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: ran out from behind the tree, and the two brothers left. Procedural Posture: At trial, state was allowed to introduce testimony of two witnesses regarding prior uncharged sexual abuse committed by appellant. o Boy Testified that on several occasions appellant coerced him into placing appellant's penis in his mouth. Boy's mother testified that she caught her son with his mouth on appellant's penis. Burns appealing his conviction of first degree statutory sodomy. D challenges the constitutionality of section 566.025 of Missouri laws, under which evidence of appellant's prior uncharged misconduct was admitted. Issue: Does section 566.025 of Missouri laws violate the Missouri constitution? Holding: Yes! o "Section 566.025 makes no provision for consideration of whether evidence is logically or legally relevant. Rather, its language is mandatory, requiring that propensity evidence "shall" be admissible for the purpose of showing the propensity of the defendant" to commit the charged crime or crimes." Notes: Court finds that there is no possible 403 balancing test under this law...therefore it is unconstitutional. Legislatu...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 08/28/2008 for the course N 483 taught by Professor Wellborn during the Summer '08 term at University of Texas at Austin.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online