The MIMIC Exceptions

The first step in understanding the MIMIC exceptions is to understand how they relate to and affect the general analysis for character evidence.  

An essential rule to understand in the law of Evidence is that evidence of a person's other crimes or misconduct is inadmissible if offered solely to establish criminal disposition or bad character. You'll often hear this referred to as propensity. Specifically, character evidence cannot be offered to prove that because defendant has committed certain crimes or misconduct in the past, defendant therefore is guilty of the current charges. 

Where MIMIC plays into this analysis is that it provides for situations in which evidence of other prior crimes or misconduct by the defendant may be admissible. The title of this post calls these situations exceptions to the general rule and that is how it's often stated. But it's important to understand that when MIMIC applies, it applies because the evidence is not offered to prove propensity. Nothing about MIMIC allows evidence of prior crimes or misconduct to be offered for that specific purpose. It's an exception in the sense that it allows this type of evidence to get admitted for situations other than to prove propensity.

And so for which purposes will this evidence of prior crimes or misconduct be admissible. Specifically, the following:

Motive

Intent

Mistake (absence of)

Identity

Common Plan or scheme

As you work through MBE questions, be sure before choosing an answer such as "inadmissible propensity evidence" or inadmissible character evidence, or something of the sort, that you consider if the evidence is instead offered for one of those 5 above purposes. 

There are also a few requirements before evidence will be admitted for one of the MIMIC purposes. To be admissible, there must be sufficient evidence to support a jury finding that the defendant committed the prior act that is the basis of the MIMIC evidence. Further, the probative value of offering the evidence must not be substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. If the probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, the judge has the discretion to exclude it.