Character Evidence Flashcards
Character evidence in civil cases.
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.
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?
Federal - Yes; CA - No because no exception for sexual assault case
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.
Admissibility of evidence of defendant’s character to prove his conduct in a criminal case. 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.
Exceptions where prosecution may be first to offer evidence of defendant’s character to prove defendant’s conduct:
- 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,
- Federal only—where court has admitted evidence of victim’s character offered by accused, prosecution may offer evidence that accused has same character trait,
- 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
- 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).
Trial begins with the door closed. Defendant is charged with non-sexual assault of a 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?
No - because general rule applies to both CA & Federal Cts - door is closed
Federal and California exception for sexual assault cases. 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?
Yes, the door to Ds character to prove conduct from the start in a case like this
California exception for domestic violence. 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?
Federal: No
CA: Yes - DV exception
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?
Federal: Yes - D opened door to Victims character and thus Prosecution can show D also has the same character trait he claimed victim to have.
CA: Yes - This opening the door by defendant as to victims character only works for violence
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?
Federal: Yes
CA: No
On direct examination, reputation and opinion are OK, but not specific instances. On cross examination, all are admissible under FRE, but under CEC, it…
admits only reputation and opinion to prove defendant’s character, whether on direct or cross.
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?
FRE & CEC: Yes, to attack the credibility of the witness’ opinion
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.
Trial begins with the door closed to victim’s character. 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?
CA: Inadmissible
Federal: Inadmissible
Federal: Admissible, homicide exception applies
CA: Inadmissible - D has to open the door by offering evidence of victims character. Her attacking first is not evidence of character.
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?
Federal & CA: Admissible - D has the key to victim character door
