Character Evidence Flashcards
True or False: character evidence is generally admissible to prove that, on a given occasion, acted in accordance with character trait
False. The opposite, actually. Character evidence is generally inadmissible to prove that, on a given occasion, acted in accordance with character. May be admissible for other purposes though
What rule covers character evidence?
Several, actually. Important ones are 404 (generally), 609 (criminal conviction), and 612 (rape shield)
Rule 404 (a)(1)(A): the Mercy Rule
A defendant in a criminal trial may offer evidence of a PERTINENT TRAIT, and if evidence is admitted, prosecutor may admit evidence to rebut
Tom Gronkowski is on trial for embezzlement of funds from his sportscasting deal. In order to mount his defense, he wants to put Rob Brady on the stand to testify that, on the first game he played, Tom was nice to him and that the team generally believed he was a peaceful guy. Is Rob’s testimony permissible?
No, for several reasons. First, Tom is a defendant in a criminal trial, so he could potentially meet the exception for character evidence. However, such evidence must be for a PERTINENT trait.
Here, he is on trial for embezzlement, a crime which the pertinent trait would be dishonesty, or a reputation as a thief. A reputation as a peaceful person is not pertinent to the claim, and is therefore inadmissible.
There is also an issue with form. Rule 405 governs the way in which character evidence, if admissible, must be presented. Rob sought to testify on a specific instance. Rule 405 has narrow guidelines in which specific instance testimony is admissible, neither of which is present here.
Rule 404(a)(2)(B)
Subject to rule 412, a defendant in a criminal case may offer evidence of an alleged VICTIM’S PERTINENT TRAIT
If such evidence is admitted, prosecutor may rebut
OR
Offer evidence of defendant’s same trait
Moz the Great and Powerful has been accused by Elphaba of fraud. As his defense, Moz introduces evidence that Elphaba has a reputation for lying.
The prosecution then seeks to admit evidence that Moz actually is the one with a reputation as a con-man and a cheat.
Evaluate the admissibility of both pieces of evidence.
Both pieces of evidence are admissible. Here, Moz, a criminal defendant, admits evidence of the victim’s trait. The trait is pertinent: if Elphaba is a liar, she might be lying about the claim of fraud.
However, because Moz has introduced evidence that Elphaba is dishonest, the prosecution may introduce evidence of the same trait in Moz. As such, their evidence is admissible as well
Rule 404(a)(1)(C):
In a homicide case, the prosecutor may offer evidence of victim’s trait of PEACEFULNESS to rebut claim that victims was the AGGRESSOR
There is an exception to Rule 404’s blanket prohibition of character evidence, but its not listed. What is it?
The rule states character evidence is not admissible TO PROVE ACTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CHARACTER TRAIT
Character evidence may be admissible for another purpose. Like in hearsay, pay attention to what is trying to be accomplished
Rule 405 governs how character evidence must be presented. So, what does it say?
When character evidence is admissible, it must be presented in the form of reputation OR opinion testimony
Testimony of specific instances is only allowed when the trait is an essential element of the charge, claim, or defense.
Rule 608
A WITNESS’S credibility may be attacked or supported by reputation for having a character for TRUTHFULLNESS OR UNTRUTHFULLNESS
Evidence of a truthful character is ONLY admissible when that trait has been ATTACKED
There is another situation, other than discussed in rule 405, where specific instance testimony is admissible. What is it? (Hint: related to rule 608)
Admissible, ON CROSS, if probative of character for truthfulness or untruthfulness of witness or other witness
Rule 609 deals with impeachment by evidence of a prior criminal conviction. It’s a doozy. Break it down
1) deals with witness’s character for truthfulness, and crime was, in convicting jurisdiction, punishable by death or more than 1 year imprisonment
2) must be admitted in a criminal case where witness is not the defendant or a civil case, subject to Rule 403
2b) must be admitted in a criminal case where the witness is the defendant if the probative value outweighs its prejudicial effect to the defendant
3) in any case regardless of punishment if establishing the elements of the crime required proving, or witness admitting, dishonest act or false statement
There are a few notable things about rule 609. What are they?
1) rule is not permissive. If the requirements are met, the evidence MUST come in
2) the crime must be punishable by death or more than 1 year imprisonment. That does not mean that the defendant had to be sentenced as such
3) if the witness is the defendant in a criminal case, a reverse 403 balancing test is employed. The evidence is presumptively inadmissible unless the probative value outweighs the prejudicial effect. Merely outweighs, not substantial
