2007-02-27 11:57:26 · 16 answers · asked by ted p 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
yes, if the prosecution is using it as proof of criminal pattern, or also it can and will have weight if you are being sentenced for another crime.
2007-02-27 12:01:32 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Probably if the crimes are similar. If someone murders their wife I am sure his ex girlfriends can testify about his violent behavior in the past. And if you mean sentencing wise then that person will probably get a harsher sentence. There have been times that judges have not allowed it. Check out the Dominique Dunn case. Her boyfriend strangled and killed her but the jury wasn't allowed to hear testimony from his ex girlfriends about how abusive he was. The guy basically served less than 5 years in prison.
2007-02-27 12:02:42 · answer #2 · answered by Cristina 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
it depends what type of crime was commited in 1990 and what was commited in 2007 but a lot of times yes
2007-02-27 12:01:12 · answer #3 · answered by kristin 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
A crime commited in the past is always considered in the resolution of the present case especially when there is a similarity.
2007-02-27 12:00:54 · answer #4 · answered by FRAGINAL, JTM 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
some states have the three strikes and your done rule so in that case it could. also if the crime is of the same nature than it may also be introduced in court. sometimes prior offenses are not allowed in court because they are prejudicial meaning they make the other side look better.
2007-02-27 12:01:09 · answer #5 · answered by ranaway628 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Absolutely but it also depends on the crime... Like if you stole a piece of gum in 90 but are not on trial for murder... I kinda doubt that matters.
But if say you had a DWI in 90 and have one now, yes that does reflect a history of criminal behavior and lack of rehabilitation.
2007-02-27 18:36:51 · answer #6 · answered by BeachBum 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The fact that the crime occured will be acknowleged. However, you are only tried and punished for a crime once so it shouldn't.
2007-02-27 12:01:44 · answer #7 · answered by BlondeQT 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Prior bad acts are considered prejudicial and are generally not allowed to be included.
If the three strikes law would be involved, the sentencing would be affected.
2007-02-27 12:07:26 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
i don't know about legally but you better believe it they wont forget about what happened in 1990 even-tho you served your time.
2007-02-27 12:04:35 · answer #9 · answered by vivian.glyder@sbcglobal.net 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes. What if the crime was murder?
2007-02-27 12:02:05 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋