In State v. Sands, the defendant and another man conspired to kill certain people with bombs made by the defendant. Both the defendant and an informant had worked for the police in an informant capacity in the past in order to get the police not to prosecute them for prior crimes that predated the bombing plot. The defendant alleged that the trial judge committed reversible error when the judge permitted the prosecution to cross-examine the defendant and to impeach him by getting him to admit to prior bad deeds and crimes. As a general rule, a defendant's past difficulties with the law are not admissible to prove that he was a bad person or that he acted in conformity with his prior conduct. Why, in this case, did the appellate court approve of the admission, on cross-examination, of the defendant's prior criminal activity?

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

The Answer of In State v. Sands, the defendant and another man conspired to kill certain people with bombs made by the defendant. Both the defendant and an informant had worked for the police in an informant capacity in the past in order to get the police not to prosecute them for prior crimes that predated the bombing plot. The defendant alleged that the trial judge committed reversible error when the judge permitted the prosecution to cross-examine the defendant and to impeach him by getting him to admit to prior bad deeds and crimes. As a general rule, a defendant's past difficulties with the law are not admissible to prove that he was a bad person or that he acted in conformity with his prior conduct. Why, in this case, did the appellate court approve of the admission, on cross-examination, of the defendant's prior criminal activity?

In State V