Chapter 7 Extra Credit Hypos

Chapter 7 Extra Credit Hypos

Relevancy & Materiality

Print

Write a concise paragraph responding to each hypo on the reverse or on a separate sheet of paper attached to this one.

Hypo #1
The GrabNrun corner market is robbed by a man wearing a Raiders Jersey. The store clerk says he thinks he knows the person who did it, and when police go to question that person, they find and seize a Raiders Jersey in his house. At trial, the clerk looks at the jersey and says it looks like the same kind the robber was wearing, but he cant say if its this exact one. The defense objects on the basis of relevance.

Should the judge allow the jersey to be used as evidence in the trial?

Hypo #2
Slurpee Sam is charged with robbing a 7-11. The DA proposes to put on evidence of 3 prior convictions for convenience store robberies for the purpose of showing his propensity for robbing convenience stores.

Should the judge allow it? Why?

Hypo #3
Harvey Hotrod is arrested for auto theft. The car he is driving when he is arrested has a "punched" ignition. At trial, he testifies that the person he bought it from told him that the ignition went bad and he just never got around to replacing it. He says that it never even occurred to him that the ignition might be "punched" because it was a stolen auto and he doesn't even know what a "punched" ignition is. The DA seeks to offer evidence of 2 prior auto theft convictions of Harvey, both of which involved autos with "punched" and hot wired ignitions.

Should the judge allow the priors? Why?

Hypo #4
CSUS faculty have been terrorized by the "angry young graffitti avenger". Night after night, they come out to the parking lot to find messages spray painted on their autos such as "death before academic humiliation", "down with the oppressive test pigs" and "scantron terrorism of the masses must go". Finally, after 2 weeks, campus security stumbles on a student in process of spray painting on a faculty car and he is arrested. The DA files charges for this arrest, and separately files charges against him for all the earlier vandalisms from the past 2 weeks. In each of these earlier ones, the DA proposes to tell the jury about the one where he was arrested by campus security. The defense objects, arguing that this is not relevant, and would be "propensity" evidence, and each incident should be considered separately.

What theory could the prosecution use to bring in the facts concerning the night of the arrest into the prosecution for the earlier vandalisms where no one was arrested, or should the judge sustain (agree with) the objection to "propensity" evidence?

Hypo #5
Defendant is arrested drunk inside a closed store and charged with commercial burglary. At trial, he testifies that he was so drunk that he doesnt remember doing anything or how he got there. Does his intoxication affect the charge of breaking into and damaging the store? Does it affect the charge of entering with the intent to commit a theft?

Hypo #6
​ Defendant is arrested for assault with a deadly weapon after a bar fight at the "Drunken Clam" Bar. At trial, he wants to show that the victim- the other guy involved in the fight-was the aggressor by bringing in witnesses who have seen him start fights with other people on 2 other occasions.

Should the judge allow the witnesses to testify? Why?