Character Evidence Flashcards
How long may a crime of dishonesty be used as past criminal history?
A is correct. The defendant’s prior conviction for falsifying the credit application is a crime of dishonesty, which means it will be proper impeachment material unless it is too remote, meaning it occurred more than 10 years ago. Therefore, if 12 years have passed since the conviction, unless extraordinary circumstances existed, this would be the most likely reason to exclude it.
B is incorrect. The actual sentence imposed, whether probation or prison, is irrelevant to determining the admissibility of the prior conviction.
C is incorrect. A crime of dishonesty, as is the case with falsifying a credit application, can be used to impeach regardless of whether it was a felony or a misdemeanor.
D is incorrect. This is not a basis for prohibiting the use of the prior conviction to impeach the defendant.
Can a witness specific instances of truthfulness or untruthfulness be inquired into on cross examination of the witness to show the witness’s character trait of untruthfulness?
A criminal defendant puts her character in issue by calling a qualified witness to testify to the defendant’s good reputation (or that he has heard nothing bad) for the trait involved in the case. Under FRE 405, the witness may also give his personal opinion concerning that trait of the defendant. However, the witness may not testify to specific acts of conduct of the defendant to prove the trait at issue.
If the defendant puts her character at issue by having a character witness testify as to his opinion of the defendant or the defendant’s reputation, the prosecution may rebut in the following manner: (i) by calling its own character witness to testify to the defendant’s bad reputation or their opinion of the defendant’s character for the particular trait involved; and (ii) on cross-examination, by inquiring whether the reputation witness knows or has heard of particular instances of the defendant’s misconduct pertinent to the trait in question. Fed. R. Evid. 405(a).
Specific instances of the conduct of a witness, if probative of truthfulness or untruthfulness, can be inquired into on cross-examination of the witness to show the witness’s character trait of untruthfulness.
There does not need to be a conviction for a crime before a witness can be questioned about specific instances of untruthful conduct.
Analysis
The witness’s filing a false insurance claim involves untruthful conduct and, consequently, the defendant should be allowed to ask the witness about it.
When may a court admit evidence of prior convictions that are not of falsity or dishonesty?
When the court weighs the probative value against prejudice to the DF and when the crime occurred less than 10 years ago.
What is character evidence?
The use of character evidence to prove how a person probably acted raises the most difficult problems of relevance, especially in criminal cases. The general rule is that the prosecution cannot initiate evidence of the bad character of the defendant merely to show that she is more likely to have committed the crime of which she is accused. Thus, under Federal Rule of Evidence (FRE) 404(b), the prosecution may not show the accused’s bad character to imply criminal disposition.
However, evidence of other crimes or misconduct IS admissible if these acts are relevant to some issue other than the defendant’s character or disposition to commit the crime charged. While acknowledging that prior acts or crimes are not admissible to show conformity or to imply bad character, FRE 404(b) goes on to say that such prior acts or crimes may be admissible for other purposes (e.g., to show motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident) whenever these issues are relevant in either a criminal or a civil case.
Under FRE 404(b), independently relevant uncharged misconduct by the defendant will be admissible, without a preliminary ruling, as long as: (i) there is sufficient evidence to support a jury finding that the defendant committed the prior act (i.e., the standard of FRE 104); and (ii) its probative value on the issue of motive, intent, identity, or other independently relevant proposition is not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. Fed. R. Evid. 403; Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681 (1988).
A trial judge has broad discretion to exclude otherwise admissible evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence. Fed. R. Evid. 403.
A is correct. Although character evidence is generally inadmissible to prove that a criminal defendant acted in conformity therewith, evidence of prior crimes or wrongs is admissible to prove opportunity, intent, preparation, or plan. In this case, the crime against the witness occurred at the same location, involved the same method of restraint of the victim, used the same method to attempt to kill the victim, and occurred only a few days earlier than the homicide. The witness’s testimony would thus be admissible to prove the defendant had the same opportunity, preparation, and plan in both cases, and could be used to prove that the defendant is the killer.
B is incorrect. This answer reaches the correct answer with the wrong reasoning. The witness’s testimony cannot, in fact, be used to show the defendant’s violent nature or his acts in conformity therewith. This is exactly what the rules around improper character evidence are designed to exclude. The testimony can be used to show his plan, preparation, and opportunity to commit the homicide, but cannot be used to show the defendant’s bad character.
C is incorrect. The evidence would be inadmissible as improper character evidence if it were being offered to prove the defendant’s propensity towards violence. However, as explained above, it is admissible for another purpose - to show opportunity, preparation, and plan.
D is incorrect. Although the judge may exclude otherwise admissible evidence if its probative value were substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, here, the witness’s testimony is highly probative on the issue of the defendant’s guilt, and therefore, its probative value outweighs the prejudicial effect it may have.
