404(b): Purpose Beats Propensity

Revised stem

Daniel is on trial for the murder of Peter, his partner in a privately owned Bible-themed escape room business. Daniel's defense is that an antique crossbow in the David and Goliath room discharged accidentally while he and Peter were resetting props. The prosecutor calls Stephen, the mall's security supervisor, to testify that twice during the year before the incident, he responded to noise alarms from the business's storage bay, found Daniel and Peter in heated arguments, and had to pull Daniel off Peter while Daniel was striking him. The testimony is:

Answer flow

01 Start with the defense theory: accident.

02 Ask what fact the prior acts are offered to prove.

03 Treat intent and absence of accident as live issues.

04 Cut the who-started-it side fact.

05 Cut the violent-person propensity answer.

06 Cut the blanket character-evidence exclusion.

07 Keep the non-propensity intent purpose.

08 Choose B.

A / trap

wrong_element / side-fact foundation trap

inadmissible, because Stephen lacks first-hand knowledge of who started the storage-bay arguments.

A focuses on who started the prior arguments. Stephen personally observed Daniel striking Peter, and starter identity is not the purpose question.

B / correct

residue / non-propensity intent purpose

admissible to show that Daniel killed Peter intentionally.

B names the permitted purpose. Daniel claims accident, so intent and absence of accident are live issues.

C / trap

flat_misstatement / propensity-purpose trap

admissible to show that Daniel is a violent person.

C gives the forbidden reason. The prior acts cannot be used to prove Daniel is violent and therefore acted violently this time.

D / trap

bait_doctrine / character-label panic

inadmissible, because it is improper character evidence.

D hears the character-evidence danger but stops too early. The offered purpose is intent or absence of accident, not propensity.

C3 locks

Red axis: Purpose controls: prior acts barred for propensity can be admitted for intent or absence of accident when that issue is live.

Purple profile: The traps either panic at the character label, accept propensity, or chase a side foundation fact.

Blue signal: Daniel says the crossbow discharge was accidental, so intent is the disputed purpose.

Orange repair: Student habit to repair: treating all prior bad acts as one category instead of reading the offered purpose.

Reusable keys

Gold Key / GK-EVIDENCE-404B-NONPROPENSITY-01
Prior bad acts are not usable for propensity, but they may be used for a non-propensity purpose such as intent or absence of mistake or accident when that purpose is genuinely disputed.

Silver Key / SK-EVIDENCE-PURPOSE-AXIS-01
In a character-evidence array, lock the offered purpose before the admissibility word.

Trap Key / TK-EVIDENCE-CHARACTER-LABEL-PANIC
Do not stop at 'prior bad act.' Ask whether the answer uses it for propensity or for a permitted non-propensity purpose.

LeadMe steps

01 Name the defense theory: accident.

02 Spot the same-victim prior acts.

03 Ask what purpose the prosecutor offers them for.

04 Reject the side-fact foundation answer.

05 Reject violent-person propensity.

06 Reject blanket character exclusion.

07 Use intent and absence of accident.

08 Pick B.

Drill seeds