Also known as: lack of an accident
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A permitted non-character purpose under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b)(2) for which evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts may be admitted to rebut a claim that the charged conduct resulted from innocent error or inadvertence.
Evan Ross faces charges for directing subordinates to create fake customer accounts. The prosecutor offers evidence that Ross previously ordered phantom upgrade orders at another branch to inflate sales. The court admits the evidence because it tends to show Ross acted with intent rather than by mistake when the current accounts were fabricated.
Steve is prosecuted for embezzling restricted funds from an environmental charity. The government offers evidence that Steve previously arranged payments from another nonprofit to a company he controlled. The court admits the evidence after finding sufficient proof for a jury to conclude the prior act occurred and that its value for showing absence of mistake is not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice.
It allows other-acts evidence to rebut a defense that the charged conduct occurred by innocent error rather than by design. The prior act must be offered for that specific non-propensity reason and must satisfy relevance and Rule 403 balancing.
Supporting sources
No. The court applies the Rule 104(b) conditional-relevance standard and admits the evidence if a reasonable jury could find the prior act occurred. The court then weighs probative value against unfair prejudice under Rule 403.
Supporting sources
Lack of accident focuses on whether the defendant acted knowingly or by mistake in the charged case. A propensity argument claims the defendant is the type of person who commits such acts and therefore did so again, which Rule 404(b)(1) forbids.
Supporting sources
Yes. Rule 404(b)(2) applies to any proceeding, though criminal cases add notice requirements under Rule 404(b)(3). The non-propensity purpose remains the same regardless of the case type.