Here, the circuit court properly noted the prior crime and the charged crime were: (1) highly similar, given both involved Williams touching a young girl's vagina; and (2) close in time. 1965) (“Another factor to be considered is whether the Government was faced with a real necessity which required it to offer the evidence in its main case.”); Graham, Jr., supra, § 5259. Because the second sentence of article I, section 18(c) is taken word-for-word from Rule 403, this Court is bound to give that language the same mandatory construction it received prior to adoption here.
Finally, in determining the probative value of a particular item of propensity evidence, courts have looked to the prosecution's need for that evidence to prove its case. In Le May, the court stated:[C]ourts must consider whether the prior acts evidence was necessary to prove the case.
The frequency of Williams's abuse declined after Williams and Mother separated in 2012, though Williams continued to abuse Victim on some occasions. Courts that follow the common-law tradition almost unanimously have come to disallow resort by the prosecution to any kind of evidence of a defendant's evil character to establish a probability of his guilt. But even if this Court were to conclude the general ban against propensity evidence is “so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental,” Egelhoff, 518 U. Instead, the amendment only allows the use of such evidence “in prosecutions for crimes of a sexual nature involving a victim under eighteen years of age.” The historical practice regarding the use of propensity evidence in these limited circumstances weighs decidedly against Williams. By the early part of the 20th century, a significant number of state courts allowed the introduction of evidence of sexual misconduct between a defendant and his victim (of any age) for the purpose of proving the defendant's propensity to commit the sex offense with which he was charged. All evidence introduced against a criminal defendant might be said to be prejudicial if it tends to prove the prosecution's case ․. Nor does the admission of even highly prejudicial evidence necessarily trespass on a defendant's constitutional rights.
In September 2013, Victim reported Williams's abuse to the police. Not that the law invests the defendant with a presumption of good character, but it simply closes the whole matter of character, disposition and reputation on the prosecution's case-in-chief. See Le May, 260 F.3d at 1025 (historical practice has routinely, if not uniformly, allowed the use of propensity evidence in such circumstances). 305, 320 (1858) (“[C]ourts in several of the states [have] shown a disposition to relax the rule [barring propensity evidence] in cases where the offense consist[ed] of illicit intercourse between the sexes.”). The introduction of such evidence can amount to a constitutional violation only if its prejudicial effect far outweighs its probative value ․. Thus, the claim that Rule 414 is unconstitutional can be reduced to a very narrow question: “whether admission of ․ evidence that is both relevant under Rule 402 and not overly prejudicial under 403 may still be said to violate the defendant's due process right to a fundamentally fair trial.” Castillo, 140 F.3d at 882.
The circuit court considered whether any unfair prejudice could be mitigated by limiting either the extent of the evidence or the manner in which the evidence would be presented. The stipulation, in its entirety, reads: On November 25, 1996, in the Circuit Court of Cass County Missouri, in Case Number 17R039601344FX, the defendant Travis W.