Chapter 6- Character Evidence Flashcards
What constitutes character evidence?
The question is whether character refers to someone’s actual moral disposition, or to his reputation, i.e. the opinion held by the community as to his moral disposition (subjective thoughts).
In theory it is only general reputation which is at stake, but in practice it has proven nearly impossible to maintain this distinction. Therefore, direct evidence of moral disposition is often admitted. Actual disposition is relevant, but evidence of his reputation is the only relatively objective criterion which can be found.
What is the origin of the rules applicable to character evidence?
They are primarily Common Law rules. The Common Law has been made applicable via the residuary provisions. (Section 227 makes it clear that evidence of the accused’s character should be handled according to the manner in which it would be handled in English Law).
Certain statutory additions and amendments have created exceptions to the Common Law rule and cognizance must be taken of both Statutory and Common Law to fully understand this rule.
Facts which could be identified as character evidence, could simultaneously be similar facts and collateral facts.
Where may it been seen that evidence of disposition as opposed to reputation is often led as character evidence? -4 points
1) Similar fact evidence of specific acts is sometimes admissible.
2) “Character in s197 in the CP Act is interpreted so as to include both concepts.
3) Evidence against the character of a witness is not always based on reputation.
4) Previous convictions (specifically criminal acts) may in certain circumstances be proven against an accused.
What is the place of character evidence in the Lw of Evidence?
Character evidence is primarily evidential material which is dependent for its admissibility on its relevance to the facts in issue. One first has to decide whether the evidence is admissible before one can accord it any evidential value or cogency.
Fits perfectly with other rules, such as SF etc.
Character evidence is encountered in both Civil and Criminal cases, and are usually dealt with by starting with discussing the different role players (eg plaintiff, defendant and accused) characters.
What is the general rule with regards to character evidence?
The general rule is that it is inadmissible. Although the rule originates from Common Law, there are a couple of sections which manifested the Common Law rule.
What is the reason for the general rule that character evidence is inadmissible?
The obvious reason for it inadmissibility is that character evidence is irrelevant. The mere fact that a person has a bad record of previous convictions or that he is of dubious character doesn’t mean that he or she has committed the alleged crime.
How has character evidence been applied in civil cases in regards to the character of the plaintiff?
Characters of plaintiffs usually irrelevant. Usually not sufficiently relevant to the point in issue to justify the drawing of any inferences.
The question of character arises when the court has to decide whether defamation has taken place, eg when the defendants plea is one of truth and justification. If the fact of defamation has been established, the plaintiff’s character is highly relevant to the amount to be awarded for damages.
In defamation actions the courts adhere closely to the rule that is general reputation, and not disposition as evidenced by specific acts.
Character is also relevant in actions regarding breach of faith, seduction and divorce, particularly as regards the amount awarded for damages.
How has character evidence been applied in civil cases, with regards to the character of the defendant?
Defendant’s character usually irrelevant, except in obvious cases such as those involving fraud, adultery and deduction. In such cases the person’s conduct may be proven, even though the character of the defendant must suffer in consequence.
How has character evidence been applied in criminal cases with regard to the good character of the accused?
Logically, evidence of an accused’s good character or reputation is irrelevant. It is an established rule that an accused may in fact lead evidence of his good character. The requirement is that the particular aspect of his character must be relevant to the type of offence with which he is charged.
How has character evidence been applied in criminal cases with regards to the bad character of the accused?
General rule is that evidence may be rendered to show that an accused has a bad character. To this rule there are several exceptions.
What are the exceptions to the general rule in which evidence may be rendered to show that an accused has a bad character?
1) Evidence of character that is admissible as similar facts.
2) Where the evidence of the accused’s bad character is relevant to the proof of the offence charged and therefore admissible, and not merely to show that an accused has a bad character.
3) When the accused has led evidence of his of his bad character, to rebut his evidence of having a good character; and not only by cross-examination. It is a requirement that the evidence in rebuttal must be strictly relevant, with reference to the offence charged.
It is NB to note that s197 of the CP Act rules cross-examination of the accused with reference to his bad character, but it doesn’t rule the position of leading evidence about his bad character.
How has character evidence been applied in criminal cases with regards to the character of the opponent’s witness?
The character of an opponent’s witness is relevant, only to his credibility. Questions relating to credibility are permitted in cross-examination. A party is entitled to lead evidence to impeach the credibility of his opponent’s witness, strictly speaking, only of reputation. Eg this may include evidence of previous conviction, partiality, bias and emotional instability. There are certain requirements that have to be met for a party to challenge the credibility of his opponents witness.
What are the requirements that have to be met for a party to challenge the credibility of his opponent’s witness?
1) It must be strictly relevant to the witness’s credibility as such.
2) It may only be led to show that the witness has a general reputation for untrustworthiness, or the witness is an unreliable witness in the particular issue before the court.
3) If the evidence is only relevant to show that the witness in question has told a lie before, it is inadmissible.
What is one of the ways that a witness’s credibility may be challenged?
By means of evidence of a previous statement made by him, which is inconsistent with his evidence in court.
When is a previous inconsistent statement admissible as character evidence?
It is admissible, provided that it relates to the “subject matter of the proceedings”. Such as statement is inadmissible if its only function is to show that the witness has contradicted himself. The circumstances surrounding the state,net must be explained, and the statement itself put to the witness. Only if he denies it, can it be proved.
The previous statement doesn’t constitute proof of its contents, it serves only to challenge the credibility of the witness.
