Content area
Full Text
"(b) Crimes, Wrongs, or Other Acts.
"(1) Prohibited Uses. Evidence of a crime, wrong, or other act is not admissible to prove a person's character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character.
"(2) Permitted Uses. This evidence may be admissible for another purpose, such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident. However, evidence of other bad acts is inadmissible where its probative value is outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice to the defendant, even if not substantially outweighed by that risk." Mass. G. Evid. [section] 404(b).
NOTES 1. Generally.
a. "Generally a witness cannot be impeached by use of a specific act of misconduct not resulting in a conviction. However, prior bad acts of a witness may be admissible to show that she committed the crime or had the motive, intent, and opportunity to commit it." Commonwealth v. Podkowka, 445 Mass. 692, 696, 840 N.E.2d 476 (2006) (citations and quotation marks omitted).
b. "Evidence of prior bad acts may not be introduced for the purpose of showing the accused's propensity to commit the crime charged. Such evidence may be admissible, however, if relevant for some other probative purpose, including for the purpose of showing intent, motive, state of mind, or some other relevant issue at trial. These determinations are left to the sound discretion of the judge, whose decision to admit such evidence will be upheld absent clear error. Here, Martinez's testimony that the defendant had used cocaine in his apartment was relevant to prove the defendant's motive for breaking into Martinez's apartment on the night of the murder. Testimony that a probation officer accompanied police officers to the defendant's home with a default warrant was relevant to explain the sequence of events that took place on the day the defendant was arrested. Finally, the defendant's statement that he had been involved in other 'b and e's' was relevant to prove the defendant's intent and to support his admission that he had broken into the victim's house on the night of the murder. The challenged testimony in context, '(the defendant) stated that he had done a lot of B and E's but he had...