Homework answers / question archive / University of Technology Sydney LAW 70109 Week 11- Tutorial Q's- Tendency and coincidence evidence Questions: What is meant by tendency and coincidence evidence? What is the difference between them? Give some examples

University of Technology Sydney LAW 70109 Week 11- Tutorial Q's- Tendency and coincidence evidence Questions: What is meant by tendency and coincidence evidence? What is the difference between them? Give some examples

Law

Share With

University of Technology Sydney LAW 70109

Week 11- Tutorial Q's- Tendency and coincidence evidence

Questions:

1. What is meant by tendency and coincidence evidence? What is the difference between them? Give some examples.
2. Why does tendency and/or coincidence evidence seem relevant? Why is admissibility of this evidence so dangerous? Does the common law still have application in this area?
3. In Max's trial the prosecution wants to call evidence from two witnesses to show Max has been violent in the past especially when he's drunk. One witness will give evidence that he previously worked for Max in his IT business and he saw Max punch a client when the client defaulted on his debt. Another witness will give evidence that Max smashed a glass and threatened a bar tender when he was drunk on New Year’s Eve two years ago. Is the evidence of these two witnesses admissible and if so, for what use? How would it become admissible?
4. Audrey is on trial for the murder of her daughter Victoria. The prosecution alleges that Audrey administered arsenic poison to Victoria in her food and would benefit from Victoria’s life insurance policy worth $50,000. Prior to her death Victoria was admitted to hospital on several occasions complaining of nausea and tenderness in the abdomen. On Victoria’s last visit to hospital a doctor diagnosed her with inflammation of the stomach.

Although Victoria was still sick she was discharged from hospital. She died five days later and an autopsy revealed that the cause of death was arsenic poisoning. Audrey lives on a farm and she contends that Victoria, who lived and worked on the farm, could have accidentally ingested the arsenic as it is used in pesticides on the farm. The prosecution wants to lead evidence of the circumstances of the deaths of Audrey’s father George and her husband Frank. George died ten years ago of arsenic poisoning and Frank died two years ago after being admitted to the hospital with severe nausea and stomach pains.

Arsenic was found in Frank’s system but the cause of death was inconclusive because he was an alcoholic and had kidney failure. Both men lived and worked with Audrey on the farm and when her father died she inherited the farm from him. Audrey received $100,000 from Frank’s life insurance policy. The police did not investigate either of these deaths.

How, if at all, can the prosecution use the evidence pertaining to the deaths of George and Frank?

5. What are some of the problems associated with EA, section 101? What does it expect a trial judge to do in order to satisfy the s101 test? How does s101 relate to the leading pre evidence Act authorities especially Hoch and Pfennig?