Also known as: absence of mistake · absence of accident · mistake or accident
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A non-propensity purpose for which evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts may be admitted under the Federal Rules of Evidence. The purpose rebuts a defense that the charged conduct occurred through innocent error rather than culpable intent.
Andrew Avery, executive director of an environmental charity, faces embezzlement charges for diverting restricted funds. Two years earlier he submitted invoices to a youth sports nonprofit board for consulting fees paid to his own company. The prosecution offers the prior invoices to show that Avery knew the documentation requirements and did not mistakenly believe the current transfers were authorized.
Anthony Arnold is tried for assaulting a stadium fan. The prosecution offers evidence that Arnold punched a teammate in a locker-room argument the year before. The evidence is admitted after the court finds sufficient proof the prior act occurred and determines its value on intent is not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Andre Antoine, a convicted felon, is charged with possessing a handgun. He offers to stipulate to his felony status. The prosecution seeks to introduce detailed reports of his prior theft conviction. The court excludes the reports because their probative value on status is slight once the stipulation is accepted and the risk of propensity prejudice is high.
Ariana Azizi is prosecuted for distributing obscene materials. The government offers evidence of her prior distribution activities. The court applies a four-part test requiring a proper non-propensity purpose such as absence of mistake, relevance, reliability, and Rule 403 balancing before deciding admissibility.
Amelia Amari is tried for sexual assault after claiming the victim consented. The prosecution offers evidence of her prior non-consensual acts with other victims. The court evaluates whether the evidence is relevant to rebut consent and whether any probative value on absence of mistake is outweighed by prejudice.
It permits other-acts evidence to rebut a defense that the charged conduct resulted from innocent error. The evidence shows the defendant previously engaged in similar conduct and therefore understood the requirements or acted knowingly rather than by mistake.
Supporting sources
No. The trial court need only find sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to conclude the defendant committed the prior act under the Rule 104(b) conditional relevance standard. The evidence remains subject to Rule 403 balancing.
Supporting sources
Absence of mistake uses the prior act to show the defendant knew the conduct was wrongful or understood documentation rules, rebutting an innocent-error claim. A propensity argument invites the jury to infer the defendant is the type of person who commits such acts and therefore did so again.
Supporting sources
…acts on some issue other than status ( i. e. , to prove "motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident," Fed. Rule Evid. 404(b)), Rule 404(b) guarantees the opportunity to seek its admission. Nor can it be argued that the events behind the prior conviction are proper nourishment for the…