By
David Rangaviz
State
v. Vuley, 2013 VT
9
“The
man who wins the lottery once is envied; the one who wins it twice is
investigated.”
In
criminal trials, the presentation of evidence to the jury is governed by
certain rules. These evidentiary rules
often keep highly relevant information away from the jury, typically because
the evidence is either somehow unreliable, unfair to the defendant, or confusing
to the jury.
One
such rule bars what is referred to either as propensity or character evidence. Under this rule, the prosecution cannot admit
evidence of a defendant’s other bad
acts—as in, not the act the defendant is on trial for allegedly committing—to
show that he has a certain character trait or propensity (for committing crime). The theory behind the rule is that the
prosecution should have to show that the defendant committed this crime, not have the bar effectively
lowered by the admission of evidence of the defendant’s prior bad acts. Also, these prior bad acts might poison the
jury against the defendant, and send the trial down any number of rabbit holes
if the defendant disputes that he committed each individual prior act (turning
each trial into an endless criminal version of This Is Your Life).