Hypothetical
Defendant Ray is charged with embezzling from his employer by creating fake vendor invoices over six months. The state offers, under FRE 404(b), evidence that three years earlier Ray created fake vendor invoices to embezzle from a prior employer. The state argues the prior act shows plan, intent, and absence of mistake. Ray's counsel objects that the prior act is too remote and is propensity evidence in disguise.
Call of the question
Analyze whether the prior-act evidence is admissible under FRE 404(b) and 403. Identify the issues, state the rules, apply them, and conclude. Address the federal versus state distinction if material.
Write a full IRAC or CREAC answer. Discuss 404(b) purpose, the 403 balancing, remoteness, and the Huddleston sufficiency standard. Address the risk of propensity use and the role of a limiting instruction under Rule 105.
0 words
Unlock all 1,000+ drills + the AI essay grader for $9.99/month.
Upgrade to Pro