Legal Definitions - inclusionary-approach rule

The inclusionary-approach rule is a principle in evidence law that allows a court to admit evidence of a person's past actions, even if those actions were a crime or a wrong, during a trial. The core idea is that such evidence can be used for specific, legitimate purposes, but never solely to suggest that because someone committed a past wrong, they are likely to have committed the current offense.

For this type of evidence to be admissible, two main conditions must be met:

• It must be relevant to a specific, contested issue in the current case (for example, proving motive, intent, identity, or absence of mistake).
• Its probative value (how much it helps prove a key point) must outweigh its prejudicial effect (any unfair bias or harm it might create against the person).

In essence, the rule favors admitting relevant evidence unless its potential to unfairly sway the jury is too high, as long as it's not simply used to paint the defendant as a "bad person."

Examples:

• Proving Intent: Imagine a person is on trial for arson, accused of setting fire to their business. The prosecution seeks to introduce evidence that the same person previously set fire to another business they owned five years ago, also shortly after increasing their insurance policy. Under the inclusionary-approach rule, this prior act would likely be admissible, not to say "this person is an arsonist," but to demonstrate a pattern of intent or a motive (insurance fraud) that is highly relevant to the current charge. The court would weigh whether this evidence of intent is more valuable than the potential prejudice of showing a past similar act.

• Establishing Identity: Consider a case where a series of burglaries occurred, all involving a highly unusual and distinctive method of entry, such as disabling a specific type of alarm system while leaving a unique calling card. The defendant is accused of the latest burglary. The prosecution might introduce evidence that the defendant was previously convicted of a burglary using the exact same, highly unusual method and leaving the same calling card. This evidence wouldn't be used to suggest the defendant is generally a burglar, but rather to establish identity through a unique modus operandi (M.O.), making it highly relevant to who committed the current crime.

• Showing Absence of Mistake or Knowledge: Suppose a defendant is charged with selling illegal drugs and claims they genuinely believed the substance they were selling was a legal dietary supplement. The prosecution might introduce evidence that the defendant had been previously arrested and warned about selling the same illegal substance from the same supplier just a few months prior. This past incident wouldn't be used to prove the defendant is a drug dealer in general, but specifically to counter their defense of mistake or lack of knowledge, demonstrating they were aware of the true nature of the substance. The court would assess if this evidence of knowledge is more helpful in clarifying the facts than it is harmful by suggesting a general criminal disposition.