Evidence-Wellborn SU2006 Outline

Issue was the evidence of ds previous robbery

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: you." And then moved in front of him and pointed a gun at him. Grabbed the wallet and ran. Ran west on Van Buren. Defendant testified on his own behalf denied committing the robberies and stated that he was home when the robberies were committed. D argues that the trial court improperly admitted the testimony of Professor Melamed because the evidence was irrelevant and unduly prejudicial. Issue: Was the evidence of D's previous robbery admissible? Holding: Evidence should not have been admitted. o Holding 1: Evidence was not relevant to prove identity: "The similarities the State identifies between the offender's conduct in the two robberies do not earmark the crimes. Because the similarities represent only features which are common in many robberies, they are not distinctive enough to earmark them as the work of a single individual." o "Melamed's testimony should have been excluded because its probative value was outweighed by the potential for prejudice..the strength of other evidence (license plate..foreign currency etc.) eliminated the need for Melamed's testimony identifying the defendant and increased the likelihood that the jury improperly based its verdict on D's propensity to commit crime." Notes: Dissent No question that the defense has got this guy foreign currency highly PROBAT...
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