Character Evidence

Question 1

Character Evidence
1.) Character evidence in civil cases.

2.) Civil tort action for assault arising out of rape. To prove defendant committed the tort, plaintiff offers evidence defendant committed other acts of sexual assault in the past. Admissible under Federal law? Under California law?

Answer 1

1. ) Inadmissible to prove conduct. No California exceptions. One exception under Federal Rules only: where claim is based on sexual assault or child molestation. In such a case, defendant’s prior acts of sexual assault or child molestation are admissible to prove defendant’s conduct in this case.
2. ) Yes; No

Question 2

Character evidence in criminal cases.

Two major issues: Is character evidence admissible to prove conduct of defendant? Of the victim? Remember, there are separate doors to the admissibility of such evidence. Both are closed when the prosecution begins its case. Usually only the defendant can open these doors. Usually they are opened separately.

1. ) How the rule works between fed and Caii?
2. ) Exceptions where prosecution may be first to offer evidence of defendant’s character to prove defendant’s conduct:

Answer 2

1. ) Admissibility of evidence of defendant’s character to prove his conduct. Federal and California: Prosecution cannot be first to offer such evidence. Usually, prosecution may only rebut after defendant opens door by offering character evidence. Prop. 8 does not change this rule in California.
   (1) Federal and California—in cases of sexual assault or child molestation, prosecution may offer evidence that defendant committed other acts of sexual assault or child molestation,
   (2) Federal only—where court has admitted evidence of victim’s character offered by accused, prosecution may offer evidence that accused has same character trait,
   (3) California only—in prosecution for crime of domestic violence or elder abuse, prosecution may offer evidence that defendant committed other acts of domestic violence or elder abuse,

and

(4) California only—where court has admitted evidence of victim’s character for violence offered by accused, prosecution may offer evidence that accused has violent character (a narrower version of #2).

Question 3

Character Evidence In Criminal Cases

1. ) Defendant is charged with non-sexual assault of an old woman. He claims self-defense because she attacked him first. Defendant has a long criminal record of violent assaults. During its case in chief, the state offers evidence of this criminal record. Admissible in federal or state court?
2. ) Defendant is charged with sexual assault of an old woman. He denies committing the assault. During its case in chief, the state offers evidence that defendant has committed other sexual assaults. Admissible in federal or state court?
3. ) Defendant is charged with assaulting his wife, an act of domestic violence. He denies committing the assault. During its case in chief, the prosecution offers evidence defendant previously assaulted his wife. Admissible in federal or state court?

Answer 3

1. ) Trial begins with the door closed. Not admissible in Feds or Cali!
2. ) Federal and California exception for sexual assault cases. Admissible in both Federal and California
3. ) California exception for domestic violence. Federal not admissible. California it is admissible
4. )

Question 4

When does evidence of victim’s character open door to evidence of defendant’s character? Broad Federal and narrow California exceptions.

1. ) Prosecution for assault. Victim claims that Defendant hit her. Defendant claims Victim hit Defendant first and that Defendant acted in self-defense. Defendant offers evidence that Victim has violent character. May prosecution now offer evidence that Defendant also has violent character?
   2) . Prosecution for theft of diamond ring. Victim claims defendant stole her ring. Defendant claims ownership of the ring and claims it was Victim who stole it and that defendant just took it back. Defendant offers evidence that Victim has character for dishonesty. May prosecution now offer evidence that Defendant has character for dishonesty?

Answer 4

1. ) Yes in both federal and Cali law. Cali exception appies in that when D shows victim has a character for VIOLENCE then that opens the door for prosecution to show D is VIOLENT Character
2. ) Federal- Yes; Cali-No! Cali rule only works for the victim’s character trait of VIOLENCE

Question 5

1. ) How to admit opinion reputation evidence on direct and cross in Fed and Cali.
2. ) Prosecution for assault. Defendant calls witness who testifies that, in his opinion, the defendant is gentle. On cross-exam, prosecutor asks “Did you know that the defendant kicked his evidence professor?” Admissible under FRE? The CEC? Prop. 8?
3. ) General Rule: Admissibility of evidence of victim’s character to prove his conduct.
4. ) Defendant is charged with non-sexual assault of an elderly woman. He alleges self-defense, claiming she attacked him first. During its case in chief, prosecution offers evidence that the little old lady who is alleged victim has a reputation for being peaceful and gentle. Admissible under California law? Under federal law? What if this was a homicide prosecution and defendant testified the elderly woman attacked first?
5. ) Defendant can open the door. Same case. Defense calls witness to testify that the little old lady is called “Psycho” back at the rest home because she has a reputation for being violent. Admissible under federal law? California?
   c. On direct, no specific instances under Federal Rules but OK under CEC. Same case. On direct examination defense witness testifies that the victim once attacked her roommate. Admissible under federal law? California?

Answer 5

1. ) On direct examination, reputation and opinion are OK, but not specific instances. On cross examination, all are admissible under FRE. CEC admits only reputation and opinion to prove defendant’s character, whether on direct or cross.
2. ) Fed- Yes; Cali- No ,assuming the door is open, in Cali you can only prove D’s character with reputation or opinion evidence. If if you’re on cross.
3. ) Admissibility of evidence of victim’s character to prove his conduct. Federal and California: Most of the same rules apply. Prosecution cannot be first to offer character to prove conduct (the trial begins with the door closed). Prop. 8 does not change this rule in California. Federal exception: in a homicide case the prosecution can be first to offer evidence that victim had peaceful character if defendant offers evidence victim attacked first. Federal and California: Defendant can be the first to offer character of victim to prove conduct, then prosecution may rebut (the door is open). Under FRE reputation and opinion evidence admissible; no specific instances

on direct, but OK on cross. In California, reputation, opinion, and specific instances

permitted on both direct and cross.

3. ) Federal and California: Most of the same rules apply. Prosecution cannot be first to offer character to prove conduct (the trial begins with the door closed). Prop. 8 does not change this rule in California. Federal exception: in a homicide case the prosecution can be first to offer evidence that victim had peaceful character if defendant offers evidence victim attacked first. Federal and California: Defendant can be the first to offer character of victim to prove conduct, then prosecution may rebut (the door is open). Under FRE reputation and opinion evidence admissible; no specific instances on direct, but OK on cross. In California, reputation, opinion, and specific instances permitted on both direct and cross.
4. ) Trial begins with the door closed to victim’s character.In FEd and Cali law- NAh not admissibe. Door is closed when case-in-cheif begins…If homicide prosecution…, fed could offer evidence that victim had a peaceful chracter. In Cali– no such exception in cali even if homicide case when he argues that he was attacked.
5. ) YEs in cali and FED would be allowed
6. ) In fed- nah no specific instances of conduct on direct; In cali- specific instances are admissible when offering opinion of victims ( so in Cali there’s a preference for specifc instances when its the victims character at issue and a pregidous against having D’s specific conduct put out there on direc or cross