or alter their child’s behavior. That corrective intent is lacking in a battery.” Ceaser v. State, 964 N.E.2d 911, 917 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012), transfer denied, 969 N.E.2d 86 (Ind. 2012). “[0]ften the only way to determine whether the punishment is a non-criminal act of discipline that was unintentionally harsh or whether it constitutes the [crime] of child abuse is to look at the parent’s history of disciplining the child.” State v. Taylor, 701 A.2d 389, 396 (Md. 1997). In such cases, “[a] parent’s other disciplinary acts can be the most probative evidence of whether his or her disciplinary corporal punishment is imposed maliciously, with an intent to injure, or with a sincere desire to use appropriate corrective measures.” Id.; see People v. Taggart, 621 P.2d 1375, 1384-85 (Colo. 1981) (<HOLDING>), abrogated on other grounds by James v.
recognizing right of this court to regulate and discipline members of the bar holding prior bad acts evidence is admissible where there is an articulation or identification of the consequential fact to which the proffered evidence of other acts is directed recognizing that prior acts of excessive discipline may be admissible to negate any claim of accident or justification recognizing that a 11 evidence must be relevant to be admissible holding that corroborative evidence of prior specific acts of violence by victim may be admissible in selfdefense case where the defendant knew of the act