Evidence and Criminal Procedure

Four reasons are generally advanced for excluding otherwise pertinent evidence. Which of the following is not one of these reasons?

Protect the jury from relying on speculative evidence

"The means of proof which tends to show the existence of a fact in question, without the intervention of the proof of any other fact." This is a definition of:

Direct evidence

Assume that a defendant had told several persons that he was going to kill Wanda and the witnesses observed him sharpening a hunting knife that he said was going to be used to kill Wanda. Assume that Wanda's body was discovered near the defendant's home with stab wounds. The people who heard the defendant's threats and saw him sharpening the knife could

Testify to what they observed because evidence that helps prove or disprove identity of things connected with a crime is admissible.

Throughout the trial, the prosecution has the obligation to convince the jury of the accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

This means that each element of the offense must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

Instructions by the court that the jury "may—but need not—consider flight following the crime as one circumstance tending to show feelings of guilt," is

a correct instruction, as evidence of conduct subsequent to the act is generally admissible if it demonstrates a consciousness of guilt.

In a criminal case:

a jury will not be likely to convict based on weak or uncertain evidence because more than money is at stake for the defendant.

Generally, physical or photographic evidence that tends to establish the identity of persons involved in criminal cases are:

admissible as being relevant and material.

Photographic evidence of a gruesome crime scene may be:

admitted if it is probative of a fact in issue and does not have undue prejudicial effect.

The general rule regarding character evidence is that:

character evidence is not admissible to prove that on a particular occasion a person acted in a certain way.

Evidence that requires inferences to be made by referring to other or additional facts is called

circumstantial evidence

Some civil cases call for a higher standard of proof than is usually the case for the average civil matter, and the degree of proof must be such as will produce in the mind of the trier of fact a firm belief or conviction as to the facts sought to be established. This standard is known as:

clear and convincing evidence.

One difference between a criminal case and a civil case is that in a

criminal case a presumption in favor of the defendant accompanies him or her from the time of apprehension to the moment of conviction.

In jury trials, the degree of proof referred to as beyond a reasonable doubt:

does not have to be explained by the trial judge in a jury instruction in every criminal case.

Even after the jury has determined guilt, the judge may make use of additional evidence to determine whether probation is to be granted:

does not have to meet the technical rules required for evidence introduced at the trial.

Prima facie evidence is defined as:

evidence that suffices for proof of a particular fact unless and until contradicted and over-come by other evidence.

Evidence is legally material and admissible:

if it significantly affects a matter or issue in a case and satisfies other admissibility requirements.

As a general rule, evidence relating to out-of-court experiments and scientific evidence that has a direct bearing on the issues in the case:

is admissible, subject to the discretion of the trial court.

In some instances, a court will exclude gruesome photographs, such as a photograph of the mutilated body of a crime victim. The reason for excluding such evidence in certain cases is:

it could unduly prejudice the accused by inflaming the sensibilities of the jury.

Although the prosecution has the duty to prove all the elements of a charged crime beyond a reasonable doubt, the failure to clearly prove one element of a crime:

means that the defendant should be acquitted of the crime accused due to the prosecution's failure to meet its burden of proof.

In a criminal case, the prosecution:

must compile enough evidence to convince the jury or the judge that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt

In Wise v. State, the trial court allowed the admission of several pictures of child pornography that police discovered on the hard drive of his tower computer over the defendant's objections that, in substance, the pictures were not relevant. The forensic investigator testified that she could not tell when the pictures were added to the computer's hard drive or when, if ever, they had be viewed or accessed and that they pictures were in the unallocated part of the hard drive. The defendant purchased the computer at a flea market in a second-hand situation. With respect to the counts of child pornography that were related to the pictures on the free space of the hard drive, the appellate court:

reversed his convictions on those counts because there was no proof that the pictures were in any way related to the defendant; they were not relevant evidence and should have been excluded

In 1984, as a part of the Comprehensive Crime Control Act, Congress enacted legislation titled "Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984." Under this Act:

the defendant has the burden of alleging and proving the defense of insanity by clear and convincing evidence.

The term burden of proof in a criminal case means:

the duty of establishing the truth of a given proposition or issue.

In a criminal case, the judge, prosecutor, defense attorney, and jury each play a role. In regard to the role of the jury:

the jury today hears the evidence and makes a determination as to the facts.

In State v. Eichelberger, Part II, the defendant was tried in Washington for trafficking in stolen property. He claimed that the evidence against him was insufficient as a matter of law to support a conviction for trafficking in stolen property because there was no evidence that he knew the compact discs he found were stolen. The Washington Court of Appeals held that

the jury was entitled to find that Eichelberger had subjective knowledge of and disregarded the substantial risk that a wrongful act would occur when he sold the CDs to the pawn shop.

The prosecution in Commonwealth v. Prashaw had been permitted to introduce a couple of pictures of the defendant in which she had been posed naked in sexually provocative positions holding objects that might have been firearms. The prosecution's charge involved illegal possession or storage of firearms and did not involve any sexual criminal activity. On appeal, the reviewing court determined that:

the naked pictures of the defendant should have been excluded from introduction by the prosecution because the unfair prejudice to the defendant and to her case concerning the pictures outweighed the probative value because the jury might just convict her because she was a lewd or immoral person.

In a criminal case, the state does not normally actively prosecute a case unless:

there is at least a good chance that all the elements of the crime alleged can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

Evidence rules have been formulated for several reasons. One of these is:

to allow the court to carry on the proceedings in an orderly and efficient manner

Evidence offered by the defense as to the accused's mental condition before or after the offense is:

usually admissible if not unreasonably far removed in time.