PastPaperHero | Presentation of evidence

Learning Outcomes

This article explains how criminal convictions are proved through the presentation of evidence, including:

Identifying and explaining the main categories of proof in criminal cases—testimony, documents, real and demonstrative evidence—and how each can establish elements of an offense.
Distinguishing direct from circumstantial evidence, evaluating the strength of each, and applying both types to nuanced MBE-style fact patterns.
Explaining the prosecution’s burdens of production and persuasion, articulating the beyond‑a‑reasonable‑doubt standard, and recognizing when it has or has not been satisfied.
Evaluating the legal sufficiency of the evidence at trial, framing and analyzing motions for judgment of acquittal, and predicting outcomes on appellate review.
Analyzing when prior convictions may be admitted as elements, MIMIC evidence, or impeachment, and identifying improper propensity uses.
Recognizing unconstitutional mandatory presumptions, improper burden shifting, and defective reasonable‑doubt or intent instructions.
Applying harmless‑error and plain‑error principles to evidentiary mistakes and determining whether an error requires reversal or permits affirmance.
Integrating these doctrines to avoid common MBE traps where sufficiency, prior‑conviction evidence, presumptions, and appellate standards overlap in a single question.

MBE Syllabus

For the MBE, you are required to understand the rules and principles governing the presentation of evidence to prove a criminal conviction, with a focus on the following syllabus points:

The distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence in criminal cases
The prosecution’s burden of proof: beyond a reasonable doubt
The burdens of production and persuasion, and how they allocate proof between the parties
The role of inferences and presumptions, and the sufficiency of evidence for conviction
Admissibility and limited uses of prior convictions (as elements, MIMIC evidence, and impeachment)
The effect of improperly admitted or insufficient evidence on appeal (harmless error, plain error, and double jeopardy limits)
Common MBE traps regarding character evidence, propensity reasoning, and burden shifting in jury instructions

Test Your Knowledge

Attempt these questions before reading this article. If you find some difficult or cannot remember the answers, remember to look more closely at that area during your revision.

Which of the following is true regarding the prosecution’s burden in a criminal trial?
1. The prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
2. The prosecution must prove guilt by a preponderance of the evidence.
3. The prosecution must prove guilt by clear and convincing evidence.
4. The prosecution must prove guilt only if the defendant testifies.
Which statement best describes circumstantial evidence?
1. It is evidence that directly proves an element of the crime.
2. It is evidence that requires an inference to establish a fact.
3. It is inadmissible in criminal cases.
4. It is only used to impeach witnesses.
If a conviction is based solely on circumstantial evidence, is it valid?
1. No, only direct evidence can support a conviction.
2. Yes, if the evidence is sufficient for a rational jury to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
3. No, unless the defendant confesses.
4. Yes, but only for misdemeanors.
Which of the following uses of a prior conviction is most clearly proper?
1. Offering the defendant’s prior robbery solely to show he has a criminal disposition.
2. Using a 12-year-old misdemeanor conviction for trespass to impeach a witness.
3. Proving the “felon” element in a felon-in-possession case with a certified prior felony judgment.
4. Introducing a prior fraud conviction as character evidence in the prosecution’s case-in-chief.

Introduction

In criminal trials, the prosecution must present legally admissible evidence sufficient to prove the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. That evidence may be direct, circumstantial, or a combination of both. The rules governing how evidence is presented, what burdens each party bears, and how a reviewing court evaluates sufficiency and evidentiary errors are frequent MBE targets.

On exam questions, you must be comfortable with:

Distinguishing the type of evidence (direct vs circumstantial)
Identifying who decides what (judge vs jury)
Applying the correct burden and standard of proof
Recognizing improper use of prior convictions and character evidence
Determining whether an evidentiary problem requires reversal or can be treated as harmless error

Because the MBE often blends Evidence, Criminal Law, and Criminal Procedure, many questions will require you to move back and forth between doctrines. A prompt might describe a ruling on a motion for judgment of acquittal, an instruction on a presumption about intent, and the admission of a prior conviction—all in one question. Being able to separate each issue and apply the correct standard to each is important.

Types of Evidence in Criminal Convictions

Evidence in criminal cases falls into two main categories: direct and circumstantial. Both are equally admissible and either can independently support a conviction if the jury finds it persuasive.

Key Term: Direct Evidence
Evidence that, if believed, directly establishes a fact in issue without the need for any inference. Classic examples include an eyewitness who testifies, “I saw the defendant shoot the victim,” or a surveillance video that clearly shows the defendant committing the act.

Key Term: Circumstantial Evidence
Evidence that requires the jury to draw one or more inferences from proved facts to reach the ultimate fact in issue. Examples include fingerprints on the murder weapon, the defendant’s recent unexplained possession of stolen property, or flight immediately after a crime.

Some additional illustrations:

Direct evidence of identity: “That is the person who stabbed me.”
Circumstantial evidence of identity: the defendant’s phone placing him near the scene; his DNA on the mask used in the robbery.
Direct evidence of a statement: “I heard him say, ‘I will burn this house down tonight.’”
Circumstantial evidence of intent: buying accelerants, disabling alarms, and taking out a large insurance policy days before the fire.

On the MBE:

Do not assume circumstantial evidence is weaker or disfavored.
A conviction may rest entirely on circumstantial evidence if the totality would allow a rational juror to find each element beyond a reasonable doubt.
Mental elements (intent, knowledge, malice) are almost always proved circumstantially; there is rarely direct evidence of what someone was thinking.
Many questions test whether you incorrectly treat a purely circumstantial case as automatically insufficient.

Key Term: Sufficiency of the Evidence
A standard asking whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could find every element of the offense proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

It does not matter that the judge—or you as the exam taker—might personally find the defense story more believable. So long as a rational juror could convict on the record, the evidence is legally sufficient.

The Roles of Judge and Jury

The division of labor between judge and jury is important for many “presentation of evidence” questions.

The jury decides questions of fact: what actually happened, whether witnesses are credible, and how much weight to give evidence.
The judge decides questions of law, including:
- Whether evidence is admissible
- Whether a witness is competent
- Whether a privilege applies
- Preliminary factual questions that affect admissibility (e.g., whether a statement qualifies as a hearsay exception, whether an item is properly authenticated)

Once evidence is admitted, its weight and credibility are for the jury, not the judge. A court may not direct a guilty verdict for the prosecution in a criminal case, no matter how strong the evidence, because that would usurp the jury’s role.

In deciding preliminary questions, federal courts follow an important distinction:

For most admissibility questions, the judge decides the preliminary facts by a preponderance of the evidence and is not bound by the Rules of Evidence (except for privilege).
For issues of conditional relevance (e.g., whether X was the defendant’s agent so that X’s statement is an admission), the judge simply asks whether there is enough evidence that a reasonable juror could find the condition met. If so, the jury ultimately decides the condition.

Key Term: Judicial Notice
A court’s acceptance of a fact as true without formal proof because it is not subject to reasonable dispute (e.g., that July 4, 2020 fell on a Saturday). In a criminal case, the jury may, but need not, accept judicially noticed facts as conclusive.

Judicial notice cannot be used to circumvent the prosecution’s burden on an element of the offense. For example, a court may not take judicial notice that a particular substance is “marijuana” in the bag seized; that is for the jury to decide based on evidence.

MBE traps:

Confusing admissibility (judge) with weight (jury). That a judge admits an item does not mean the fact is established; it just goes to the jury.
Treating a judge’s ruling on a preliminary fact (e.g., “there is sufficient evidence of conspiracy to admit co-conspirator statements”) as a finding binding on the jury. It is not.

Burdens of Production and Persuasion

Two distinct burdens operate in every case.

Key Term: Burden of Production
The obligation to come forward with enough evidence on an issue to avoid having it taken away from the jury (e.g., to defeat a motion for judgment of acquittal).

Key Term: Burden of Persuasion
The obligation to convince the trier of fact of a particular proposition to the required degree of certainty (e.g., beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal cases).

In criminal trials:

The prosecution bears the burden of production and persuasion as to every element of the charged offense (including jurisdictional elements such as “in interstate commerce”).
The prosecution’s burden of persuasion is the very high beyond a reasonable doubt standard.

Key Term: Beyond a Reasonable Doubt
The constitutional standard of proof in criminal cases, requiring that the evidence be so convincing that a rational juror has no reasonable doubt about any element of the offense.

Jury instructions may explain the concept in various ways, but they may not:

Equate it with a preponderance or “more likely than not”
Suggest that proof “to a moral certainty” is sufficient if that phrase is not tied back to the reasonable-doubt standard
Tell the jury that “if the defendant is probably guilty you must convict”

Some jurisdictions may put a burden of production and sometimes a burden of persuasion on the defendant for certain affirmative defenses (e.g., insanity), usually by a preponderance of the evidence. However:

The state may never shift to the defendant the burden of persuading the jury that an element of the crime (such as intent, malice, or causation) is not present.

On the MBE, it is critical to distinguish:

Defenses that negate an element (e.g., “I did not act with malice” in a murder case) – the prosecution must still prove the element; and
True affirmative defenses (e.g., statute of limitations, duress in many jurisdictions) – the state may assign some or all of the burden to the defendant.

MBE trap: A jury instruction that “the defendant must prove he acted in self-defense by a preponderance” may be permissible (self-defense is traditionally treated as an affirmative defense). An instruction that “the defendant must prove he lacked malice” is not; malice is an element of the offense.

Sufficiency of Evidence and Motions for Acquittal

At the close of the prosecution’s case (and sometimes at the close of all evidence), the defendant may move for a directed verdict of acquittal (often called a motion for judgment of acquittal).

The trial court—and later an appellate court—applies the sufficiency of the evidence standard:

View the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, and
Ask whether any rational trier of fact could find each element proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

If the answer is no, the judge must grant the motion; if denied and the defendant is convicted, an appellate court must reverse for insufficiency.

Important distinctions:

Sufficiency of the evidence is a legal question. The judge is not weighing credibility or deciding whom to believe; the judge is testing the minimum legal adequacy of the prosecution’s proof.
The fact that the prosecution’s case is “weak” or that the defense presented strong rebuttal evidence does not make it legally insufficient if a rational juror could still convict.

Consequence on appeal:

Reversal for insufficient evidence acts as an acquittal; the defendant may not be retried for that offense because double jeopardy bars a second attempt.
Reversal for trial error (e.g., erroneous admission of evidence, incorrect evidentiary ruling, improper limitation on cross-examination) generally allows retrial because the first trial was not “full and fair.”

MBE trap: Confusing a verdict that is “against the great weight of the evidence” (a ground for a new trial in some systems) with a verdict unsupported by legally sufficient evidence (which requires an acquittal and bars retrial). The MBE focuses on the latter.

Use of Prior Convictions

Prior convictions are powerful but dangerous evidence. They are admissible only for limited, carefully defined purposes.

Key Term: Prior Conviction
A formal judgment of guilt in an earlier criminal case, which may be relevant in later proceedings for certain substantive, impeachment, or sentencing purposes.

Key Term: Character Evidence
Evidence offered to prove a person’s general character or disposition (e.g., “violent,” “honest”) and, usually, to suggest that the person acted in conformity with that character on a particular occasion.

Key Term: Propensity Evidence
Evidence, including prior convictions, offered solely to show that a person has a criminal or bad character and therefore likely acted in conformity with that character in the charged offense. This is generally inadmissible in criminal cases.

Common legitimate uses of prior convictions:

Element of the offense
- Example: In a “felon-in-possession” case, proof that the defendant has been convicted of a felony is an element of the current crime.
MIMIC (other-acts) evidence
- Prior crimes or bad acts (including convictions) may be admissible to show Motive, Intent, absence of Mistake, Identity (modus operandi), or Common scheme or plan—not to prove propensity.
Impeachment of a witness
- Certain convictions (e.g., felonies or crimes involving dishonesty) can be used to attack a witness’s credibility under strict limits.

When a prior conviction is an element, the prosecution must prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. To reduce unfair prejudice:

Courts frequently accept a stipulation that the defendant has a qualifying prior conviction, without revealing its nature (e.g., “defendant has previously been convicted of a crime punishable by more than one year” instead of “armed robbery”).
Under modern federal law, the Supreme Court has held that it is often an abuse of discretion to refuse such a stipulation and instead allow the jury to hear the prejudicial details of the prior offense when the only relevance is to satisfy the element.

When a prior conviction is admitted for a specific, limited purpose (e.g., impeachment), the court should give a limiting instruction.

Key Term: Limited Admissibility
A rule that evidence may be admitted for one legitimate purpose but not for another; the judge instructs the jury about the limited use they may make of the evidence.

Prior Convictions for Impeachment

Although this article is not a full treatment of impeachment, the basic structure is important for MBE questions involving convictions:

Crimes involving dishonesty or false statement (fraud, perjury, embezzlement, forgery) are especially probative of credibility:
- They are generally admissible to impeach any witness, subject to Rule 403 balancing.
Other felonies (punishable by more than one year):
- For witnesses other than the criminal defendant, admissible subject to Rule 403.
- For a testifying criminal defendant, the standard is stricter: the conviction should be admitted only if its probative value on credibility outweighs its prejudicial effect to the defendant.
Older convictions (more than 10 years since conviction or release) are presumptively inadmissible and rarely appear on the MBE except as wrong answer choices.

Impeachment with prior convictions is always subject to Rule 403: the judge must exclude the conviction if its probative value is substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice, confusion, or waste of time. For example, in a close case against a defendant charged with non-fraud violence, a very old fraud conviction may be too prejudicial if the defendant’s credibility is not central.

On the MBE, the classic error is:

Introducing the defendant’s prior burglary conviction in an armed robbery trial and arguing, “This shows he is the kind of person who commits theft crimes, so he probably did this one.”
- This is impermissible propensity reasoning and should be excluded.
By contrast, introducing a prior fraud conviction to impeach a defendant who testifies may be allowed if the court gives a limiting instruction and the conviction satisfies the impeachment rules.

Inferences and Presumptions

Jurors routinely draw inferences from evidence; sometimes the law formalizes these as presumptions.

Key Term: Permissive Inference
A rule allowing, but not requiring, the jury to infer one fact from proof of another (e.g., the jury may infer intent from use of a deadly weapon).

Key Term: Mandatory Presumption
A rule that requires the jury to find a presumed fact upon proof of another fact, unless the defendant produces evidence to rebut it.

In criminal cases:

Permissive inferences are generally constitutional if:
- The proved fact rationally supports the inferred fact (the connection is not arbitrary), and
- The jury is clearly told it may, but need not, draw the inference.
Mandatory presumptions that effectively shift the burden of persuasion on an element to the defendant violate due process because they relieve the prosecution of its duty to prove every element beyond a reasonable doubt.

Examples:

Permissible: “You may, but are not required to, infer that a person intends the natural and probable consequences of his acts,” when the inference is justified by the evidence.
Impermissible: “The law presumes that a person intends the natural and probable consequences of his acts; therefore, if you find the defendant fired a gun at close range at the victim’s head, you must find that he intended to kill.”

Mandatory presumptions can be conclusive (“you must find intent”) or rebuttable (“you must find intent unless the defendant proves otherwise”). In a criminal case, either type is unconstitutional if it shifts the burden of persuasion on an element.

The Federal Rules recognize rebuttable presumptions in civil cases, which shift only the burden of production. In criminal cases, any presumption that affects an element must leave the ultimate burden of persuasion on the prosecution.

MBE trap: A statute or instruction that appears neutral (“possession of recently stolen property raises a presumption of theft”) may be applied unconstitutionally if the court treats it as requiring the defendant to disprove theft. Always look for whether the jury remains free to reject the inference.

Appellate Review, Harmless Error, and Plain Error

Criminal convictions can be challenged on appeal based on:

Insufficiency of the evidence, or
Trial error, such as admitting or excluding evidence in violation of the rules or the Constitution.

Key Term: Harmless Error
An error that did not affect a party’s substantial rights—i.e., it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to the verdict. The conviction is affirmed despite the error.

Key Term: Plain Error
An obvious error that affects substantial rights and seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. Appellate courts may correct plain error even if no objection was made at trial.

Key points:

Most evidentiary rulings are reviewed for abuse of discretion, and the conviction will be reversed only if the error was not harmless.
If the defense properly objected at trial, the appellate court asks whether the error likely affected the verdict. For constitutional errors (e.g., admitting a coerced confession), the prosecution must show beyond a reasonable doubt that the error was harmless.
If there was no objection, the defendant must meet the demanding plain error standard: the error must be clear, affect substantial rights, and seriously undermine the fairness or integrity of the proceedings.

Contrast:

Improper admission of a prior conviction for impeachment might be deemed harmless if the evidence of guilt was overwhelming and the defendant’s credibility was not central.
A conviction based on insufficient evidence is never harmless; it must be reversed with directions to enter a judgment of acquittal, and no retrial is permitted.
Certain rare structural errors (e.g., total denial of counsel, a biased judge, failure to give any reasonable-doubt instruction) require automatic reversal because they infect the entire framework of the trial.

Remember that some constitutional violations create exclusionary rules (such as Fifth Amendment voluntariness or certain Fourth Amendment violations). The evidentiary consequence (exclusion of a confession or physical evidence) is then analyzed under harmless error if the conviction is challenged on appeal.

Worked Example 1.1

A defendant is charged with burglary. The prosecution presents evidence that the defendant’s shoeprints match those found at the scene and that the defendant was seen near the building shortly before the crime. There are no eyewitnesses to the entry.

Question: Can the jury convict based solely on this circumstantial evidence?

Answer:
Yes. Circumstantial evidence is sufficient to support a conviction if, when viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, a rational jury could find each element of burglary proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The lack of direct eyewitness testimony does not render the evidence insufficient.

Worked Example 1.2

During a trial for armed robbery, the prosecution introduces evidence that the defendant was previously convicted of theft. The prosecution argues this shows the defendant is likely guilty of robbery.

Question: Is this use of the prior conviction proper?

Answer:
No. Prior convictions cannot be used solely to show the defendant’s propensity to commit crimes. Unless the prior theft is admissible for a non-propensity purpose (such as motive or identity) or as impeachment under the specific rules for prior convictions, it should be excluded. Even if admitted for impeachment, the jury must be instructed that it may use the conviction only to evaluate credibility, not as proof of guilt in the current case.

Worked Example 1.3

At a murder trial, the court instructs the jury: “If you find that the defendant used a deadly weapon on an essential part of the victim’s body, you must presume that he intended to kill.”

Question: Is this instruction constitutional?

Answer:
No. This is a mandatory presumption that effectively directs the jury to find the element of intent once the use of a deadly weapon is proved. It shifts the burden of persuasion on an element of the offense to the defendant and violates due process. A correct instruction would say that the jury may, but is not required to, infer intent from use of a deadly weapon.

Worked Example 1.4

A defendant is charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm. The prosecution offers a certified record of the defendant’s prior felony conviction and the arresting officer’s testimony that the defendant was holding a handgun when arrested. The defense objects that the prior conviction is unfairly prejudicial and should be excluded.

Question: Must the judge exclude the prior conviction?

Answer:
No. Here the prior conviction is an element of the offense, so the prosecution is entitled to prove it. To reduce unfair prejudice, the court should consider allowing the defendant to stipulate to “a qualifying felony conviction” and, if the conviction is admitted, should give a limiting instruction that the jury may consider it only for the element and not as proof of bad character or propensity.

Worked Example 1.5

At trial, the prosecution improperly introduces an involuntary confession obtained by coercive interrogation. The defendant is convicted, and on appeal the court agrees the confession was involuntary but notes there was substantial independent evidence of guilt.

Question: Must the conviction be reversed?

Answer:
Yes. Use of an involuntary confession is a serious constitutional violation. Although appellate courts apply a harmless-error analysis even to many constitutional errors, the prosecution must show beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to the verdict. Given the inherently prejudicial nature of an involuntary confession, that burden is rarely met. The conviction must be reversed, although retrial is permitted because the problem is trial error, not evidentiary insufficiency.

Worked Example 1.6

A defendant is charged with intentional murder. The court instructs the jury: “If you find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant killed the victim, you must find that he acted with malice unless he proves by a preponderance of the evidence that he acted in the heat of passion.”

Question: Does this instruction violate due process?

Answer:
Yes. Malice (or its modern equivalent, the mental state that distinguishes murder from manslaughter) is an element the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Requiring the defendant to disprove malice by proving heat of passion shifts the burden of persuasion on an element to the defendant and is unconstitutional. The state may place the burden on the defendant to produce some evidence of heat of passion, but the prosecution must then disprove that mitigating circumstance beyond a reasonable doubt.

Worked Example 1.7

In a federal fraud trial, the defendant testifies in his own defense. The prosecution seeks to impeach him with a 6-year-old state conviction for felony embezzlement and a 9-year-old misdemeanor conviction for simple assault.

Question: Which conviction(s), if any, may properly be used for impeachment?

Answer:
The embezzlement conviction is a felony involving dishonesty and is highly probative of credibility; it may be admitted to impeach, subject to Rule 403. Because the defendant is the accused, the judge should admit it only if its probative value on credibility outweighs its prejudicial effect. The simple assault is a misdemeanor and does not involve dishonesty; it is ordinarily not admissible for impeachment under the prior-conviction rules. If the question offers an option that both convictions are admissible, that option is incorrect.

Worked Example 1.8

In a drug-distribution trial, the court erroneously allows the prosecution to introduce detailed evidence of the defendant’s prior drug conviction solely to show that he is the kind of person who deals drugs. Defense counsel objects. The jury convicts.

Question: On appeal, what standard will the reviewing court apply to this error?

Answer:
The admission of the prior conviction for an improper propensity purpose is a non-constitutional evidentiary error. Because the defense objected, the appellate court will review for abuse of discretion and apply harmless-error analysis. The conviction must be reversed unless the prosecution can show that the error likely did not affect the verdict. If the rest of the evidence is overwhelming (for example, video of the sale and uncontested lab results), the court may deem the error harmless and affirm.

Worked Example 1.9

A defendant moves for judgment of acquittal at the close of the prosecution’s case. The motion is denied. The defendant then puts on a strong defense and does not renew the motion at the close of all the evidence. The jury convicts, and on appeal the defendant claims the evidence was insufficient.

Question: How will an appellate court generally approach this claim?

Answer:
The court applies the usual sufficiency-of-the-evidence standard: viewing the entire trial record in the light most favorable to the prosecution, could a rational juror find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt? The fact that the defendant failed to renew the motion may affect the standard of review in some jurisdictions (plain error vs preserved error), but the core inquiry remains whether the evidence, including both sides’ presentations, was legally sufficient. If not, the conviction must be reversed and retrial barred.

Worked Example 1.10

A defendant is convicted of arson. At trial, the judge took judicial notice that “the building in question was used in interstate commerce,” an element of the federal arson statute, and instructed the jury that it must accept that fact as proven.

Question: What is the likely result on appeal?

Answer:
The instruction is improper. In a criminal case, judicially noticed adjudicative facts may be presented to the jury, but the jury must be told that it may, but is not required to, accept the noticed fact as conclusive. By directing the jury to find the “interstate commerce” element established, the judge effectively removed an element from the jury and violated the defendant’s right to a jury determination of every element beyond a reasonable doubt. This is structural or at least serious constitutional error requiring reversal.

Exam Warning

Do not treat circumstantial evidence as second-class. If the facts reasonably support the necessary inferences, a purely circumstantial case can be more than sufficient for conviction.
Be alert to jury instructions that require the jury to find an element upon proof of some basic fact. These are often unconstitutional mandatory presumptions, not mere permissive inferences.
When a prior conviction is in play, always ask:
- For what purpose is it offered (element, MIMIC, impeachment)?
- Is that purpose legitimate, or is the real aim to show propensity?
- Has the court given or at least been asked to give a limiting instruction?

Revision Tip

When evaluating a conviction on appeal, separate two distinct questions:
- Was the evidence sufficient (if not, acquittal and no retrial)?
- Were there errors in admitting or excluding evidence, and if so, were they harmless, plain, or prejudicial?
Always identify whether the error affects an element of the offense or only collateral issues; this affects how likely it is to be deemed harmless.
In prior-conviction questions, mentally label the use as:
- “Status/element,”
- “Other-acts/MIMIC,” or
- “Impeachment,”
  and then apply the corresponding rule. This prevents you from sliding into improper propensity analysis.

Key Point Checklist

This article has covered the following key knowledge points:

The prosecution bears both the burden of production and the burden of persuasion for every element of a crime, and must meet the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard.
Both direct and circumstantial evidence are fully capable of supporting a conviction; no special corroboration is required for circumstantial evidence.
Sufficiency of the evidence is assessed by asking whether any rational juror could find each element proved beyond a reasonable doubt when viewing the record in the light most favorable to the prosecution.
Prior convictions are generally inadmissible to prove propensity but may be admitted as elements of a new offense, as MIMIC evidence, or for impeachment, subject to limiting instructions and Rule 403 balancing.
Permissive inferences are allowed if rational; mandatory presumptions that shift the burden of persuasion on an element to the defendant are unconstitutional.
On appeal, convictions based on insufficient evidence must be reversed with an acquittal; trial errors in admitting or excluding evidence are subject to harmless-error and, if unpreserved, plain-error review.
Judicial notice may streamline proof of undisputed facts, but in criminal cases the jury is not compelled to accept noticed facts as true, especially when they bear on an element.
A reversal for insufficient evidence bars retrial under double jeopardy principles; a reversal for trial error generally permits retrial.
Improper use of prior convictions—especially for pure propensity—remains a common MBE trap; always articulate the precise permissible purpose, if any.

Key Terms and Concepts

Direct Evidence
Circumstantial Evidence
Sufficiency of the Evidence
Burden of Production
Burden of Persuasion
Beyond a Reasonable Doubt
Prior Conviction
Character Evidence
Propensity Evidence
Limited Admissibility
Permissive Inference
Mandatory Presumption
Judicial Notice
Harmless Error
Plain Error

Presentation of evidence - Conviction of crime