zlacker

The way I understand it, the testimony that the defendant shook one or more infants angrily onbdifferent occasions would be, according to (b)(1) "Evidence of [an]other crime, wrong, or act, which is not admissible to prove [...] that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character.

In other words, you can't argue that given there is evidence that the defendant shook babies in anger before, he is the kind of guy who shakes babies in anger, and therefore this is evidence in favour of him having shaken this baby to death.

Regarding (b)(2), I interpret that the testimony that the defendant shook infants in anger in the past would only be admissible under (b)(2) if the previous acts were "proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident". I cannot see how having shaken an infant in the past could provide evidence for any of the above as relates to the separate and specific alleged infant-shaking event for which the defendant was on trial.

>>Mordis+(OP)
You don’t see how someone’s history of shaking a baby could bear on whether this separate and specific alleged infant-shaking event wasn’t an accident or that the person didn’t have the intent, preparation, and knowledge to shake a baby? I agree that this evidence implicates rule 404’s bar, but “argue why 404’s exception applies” is a standard law school final exam question.