Fill and Sign the Uslegal Pamphlet on Modus Operandius Legal Forms

© 2016 - U.S. Legal Forms, Inc USLegal Pamphlet on Modus Operandi INTRODUCTION Modus operandi is a characteristic pattern of methods of a repeated criminal act, used to identify the culprit. It is often referred to as "M.O." The modus operandi of a particular has often been held to have been a proper subject for expert testimony, under the general principles that expert testimony is admissible if the subject matter meets the ordinary test of relevance and is sufficiently beyond ordinary experience as to render the testimony of probable assistance to the jury, and that the admission of expert testimony is a matter resting within the broad discretion of the trial judge and is not to be disturbed unless clearly erroneous. For example, in pickpocket prosecutions modus operandi testimony has been held properly admitted to enable the jury to connect a defendant's apparently noncriminal act of bumping the victim to create a distraction enabling a partner to remove a wallet without being detected. Proof of the modus operandi of a crime can help the prosecution convince the jury that it was the defendant who committed the crime charged. Modus operandi evidence is helpful to the prosecution if the prosecution has evidence of crimes committed by the defendant that are similar to the crime charged. The crimes don’t need to be identical, but the prosecution must show a strong evidence of a similarity between the crime charged and the other crimes. The prosecution may introduce evidence from prior or subsequent crimes to prove modus operandi only if the other crimes share peculiar and unique characteristics with the crime charged. The features must be uncommon and rarely seen in other crimes, so that their distinctive nature indicates the handiwork of the same person. E VIDENTIARY RULES A “signature modus operandi exception” exists in many jurisdictions to the general rule that evidence of prior uncharged crimes is inadmissible. The well- established general rule concerning the admission of evidence of prior criminal acts is that proof of the commission of separate and distinct crimes is not admissible unless such proof has some legitimate tendency to directly establish the defendant's guilt of the charge for which he is on trial. The well- established general rule concerning the admission of evidence of prior criminal acts is that proof of the commission of separate and distinct crimes is not admissible unless such proof has some legitimate tendency to directly establish the defendant's guilt of the charge for which he is on trial. There are a number of exceptions to the general ban on evidence of prior criminal acts. These exceptions include: (1) motive; (2) intent; (3) the absence of mistake or accident; (4) a common scheme or plan embracing the commission of two or more crimes so related to each other than proof of one tends to establish the other; and (5) the identity of the person charged with the commission of the crime on trial. The signature modus operandi identity exception is simply a more specific form of the already established identity exception. Under the signature modus operandi identity exception, evidence of the defendant's prior criminal acts is not offered to prove his propensity to commit the charged offense. Instead, the prior acts are offered to establish the identity of the defendant as the perpetrator of the charged criminal act. There are generally two requirements for introducing evidence of an unrelated prior act to show modus operandi, or a method of operation: (1) both acts must be committed with the same or strikingly similar methodology; and (2) the methodology must be so unique that both acts can be attributed to one individual; the first requirement is that there be a very high degree of similarity between the charged crime and the prior uncharged act; the second requirement for admission as a method of operation is that the methodology be so unique that it independently identifies the accused as the perpetrator.