§ 228

Citation: § 228
Parent Document: Sweet v. Roy, 801 A.2d 694 (2002)
Jurisdiction: Vermont (state)
Effective Date: 2002-04-26
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2320480/sweet-v-roy/ ↗

Full Text

916 chars

They argue that this evidence was not (1) probative of identity because the acts are not so distinct as to be signature-like; (2) that the evidence was not probative to show motive because there is no connection between the conduct in the case at bar and the prior conduct; and (8) that the evidence is not probative of a continuing plan because the prior acts are too remote in time and too dissimilar. Defendants argue that because admission of the evidence was not justifiable under these exceptions to Rule 404’s general prohibition against character evidence, the only reason the evidence was offered and admitted was to show the defendants’ bad character and to prove they acted in conformity therewith, in violation of the rule. Finally, they argue that even if the evidence was admissible under Rule 404(b), it failed as a matter of law to pass the balancing test imposed by V.R.E. 403. Rule 404(b) provides:

Other Sections in This Document (207)

Full Text