Evidence-Wellborn SU2006 Outline

Dont want to make the party object again at trial in

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: prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith. Issue: Government suggests that Archibald failed to preserve his Rule 404(b) objection by not objecting immediately after Williams testified that Archibald had fathered Tasha's child. Did Archibald fail to preserve his Rule 404(b) objection by not objecting in a timely manner? Holding: Archibald did not fail to preserve his Rule 404(b) objection. "Occasionally, a question that is unobjectionable elicits an objectionable reply, or previously admitted testimony becomes objectionable only in light of subsequent testimony.....In the context of the present case, counsel for Archibald reasonably could not have anticipated that Williams would offer evidence of a prior crime in response to the gov's question: "How do you happen to know Alan Archibald?" KEY: Because the delay was minimal and caused no demonstrable prejudice, Archibald's objection was timely. D's rather brief postponement of objection neither prejudiced the gov. nor in any way impaired the court's ability to remedy the asserted error. (Even if it was admissible under 404(b), should have been excluded under 403, highly prejudicial). Notes: Motions in limine (at the outset) Do motions in limine preserve error...
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