When is specific act evidence of a person's other crimes or misconduct considered inadmissible?

Specific act evidence of a person's other crimes or misconduct is considered inadmissible when it is offered solely to establish the individual's criminal disposition, as this can lead to prejudice against the defendant. The legal principle behind this rule is that while such evidence may provide insight into a person's character, it can also sway the jury's opinion unfairly, leading them to infer that the person is bad or criminal based solely on their past actions rather than the facts of the case at hand. Courts aim to protect the integrity of the trial process by preventing this type of reasoning from influencing jury decisions.

Offering evidence of a person's other crimes should typically serve a more substantial factual purpose, such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, or identity, rather than merely suggesting that the individual has a propensity to commit crimes. This safeguard maintains a fair trial atmosphere and upholds the principle of presumption of innocence.