re: #49 Kragar

Rules of evidence limit whether and how this can be introduced.

90.402 Admissibility of relevant evidence.—All relevant evidence is admissible, except as provided by law.

The question becomes, is this relevant evidence (which is defined in 90.401 - Relevant evidence is evidence tending to prove or disprove a material fact.)

Then you get to the exclusions (inadmissible evidence):
See Rule 90.403 (mirroring the federal rules):
90.403 Exclusion on grounds of prejudice or confusion.—Relevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence. This section shall not be construed to mean that evidence of the existence of available third-party benefits is inadmissible.

Then there are rules dealing with character evidence (which this could fall into). Rule 90.404 (again mirroring the federal rules):

Of particular note:

(1) CHARACTER EVIDENCE GENERALLY.—Evidence of a person’s character or a trait of character is inadmissible to prove action in conformity with it on a particular occasion, except:
(a) Character of accused.—Evidence of a pertinent trait of character offered by an accused, or by the prosecution to rebut the trait.

This is what I was addressing in my prior comments above. The prosecutors can only bring this up as character evidence if the defense opens the door first.