New York Law (NYLE) Practice Exam

Which one of the following statements regarding the admissibility of prior bad act evidence in a criminal trial is false?

1. Inadmissible hearsay, probative.

2. Such evidence is admissible to establish motive, intent, absence of mistake, identity, common scheme or to negate a claim or innocent explanation for conduct.

3. A prosecutor wishing to use such evidence must make a motion in limine and the defense must be given an opportunity to respond.

4. If a court determines to admit prior bad act evidence, the court must give the jury a limiting instruction.

The correct answer is: Inadmissible hearsay, probative.

The correct answer indicates that the statement regarding inadmissible hearsay being probative is false. In the context of the admissibility of prior bad act evidence in a criminal trial, it is crucial to understand the rules governing hearsay and how they apply. Hearsay is defined as an out-of-court statement introduced to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Generally, hearsay is inadmissible due to concerns about reliability, unless it falls within an established exception. The statement that inadmissible hearsay is probative contradicts the fundamental principle that hearsay cannot be admitted for its truth in a court proceeding, regardless of its potential relevance or probative value. Evidence must meet specific legal standards to be admissible, including being what is known as non-hearsay or fitting within an exception to the hearsay rule. In contrast, the other statements accurately reflect the legal standards regarding prior bad acts. Prior bad acts can indeed be admissible for specific purposes, such as establishing motive, intent, or identity, among others, provided that the proponent of the evidence meets the necessary legal requirements. The procedure for introducing such evidence typically does require a motion in limine from the prosecutor to have a structured opportunity for the defendant to challenge its