Evidence - Character Flashcards
Character Evidence
Evidence that refers to a person’s general disposition for a certain trait - evidence that tends to show the way a person is
Purposes for Admitting Character Evidence
(1) Conduct in Conformity
(2) Person’s Character is in issue
(3) Impeachment
Methods of Proving Character
(1) Reputation
- calling a character witness to speak of the persons general reputation in the community
- summary of what the witness has heard - cannot testify to a few isolated instances
- hearsay exception
(2) Opinion
- Always involves calling a character witness to testify that they know the person, and that in their opinion, they believe that the person has a bad or good character for the particular trait we’re concerned about
- if reputation is allowed, opinion is also allowed
(3) Specific Acts
- Involves introducing evidence of a person’s good or bad deeds to show their character for the particular trait
- *Generally not allowed to show conduct in conformity
Character Default Rule
Character evidence is not allowed to show conduct in conformity (using a person’s character to prove how that person probably acted on a particular occasion)
Criminal Cases: Defendant’s Character to Show Conduct in Conformity
The prosecutor cannot initiate the use of character evidence in a criminal case
The defendant can introduce character evidence of his own good character as long as the character trait is relevant - that is - as long as its pertinent to the case
Defendant is limited to using Reputation and Opinion evidence only - CANNOT use specific acts
*Defendant’s character is never a material element for a criminal case - not “in issue” - only for some civil cases
Criminal Cases - Prosecution’s Rebuttal of Defendant’s Character Evidence
Rule: once the defendant introduces evidence of his good character, the prosecution is allowed to introduce evidence of the Defendant’s bad character for that trait
How the prosecution proves defendant’s bad character:
- Just like the defendant, the prosecution can put up its own character witness to provide reputation or opinion evidence of the defendant’s bad character for the pertinent trait - the same trait as the defendant’s character witness testified about
- And the prosecution also gets to go a step further and ask the defendant’s character witness about specific acts on cross-examination - In other words, impeach the witness who said good things about the defendant’s character
- The prosecution can ask the defendant’s character witness if they knew or heard about specific bad acts - as long as the prosecution has a good-faith basis for asking - BUT the prosecutor cannot bring in extrinsic evidence if the witness says they have not heard or did not know
Specific acts cannot come in to prove conduct in conformity, or to show that the defendant is guilty or not guilty based on these acts and what type of person they are
The defendant does not open the door simply by taking the stand and testifying on his own behalf - it only puts their CREDIBILITY in issue - so they can be impeached
Victim’s Character to show Conduct in Conformity in Self-Defense Case
Rule: A criminal defendant may offer evidence of the alleged victim’s pertinent trait, and if such evidence is permitted, the prosecutor may offer evidence to rebut it, or, may offer evidence of the defendant’s bad character for the same trait
How does the criminal defendant prove the violent character of the victim?
- reputation and opinion only, when offering character evidence to prove conduct in conformity
If the defendant chooses to offer evidence of the victim’s character to show conduct in conformity, them the prosecution has a few options:
- They can offer rebuttal evidence (introduce own character witness to give rep/opinion testimony about the victim’s peaceful character,
- Can cross-examine D’s character witness with “did you know” or “have you heard” questions that reference specific acts, or
- Can rebut with evidence of the defendant’s bad character for violence - even if the defendant has not introduced evidence of his own good character (BIG exception)
ex: a victim’s character is pertinent in a self-defense case when the defendant wants to introduce evidence of the victim’s character for violence on the issue of who struck first (who was the aggressor) - basically the only situation we see on the bar exam
Homicide Cases when the Defendant claims Self-Defense
Rule: in a homicide case, when the defendant introduces any evidence that the victim was the first aggressor, then the prosecution is entitled to introduced evidence of the victim’s good character for peacefulness
Evidence that the victim was the first aggressor does not only mean character evidence - it means any evidence - such as testimony from an eyewitness who says the victim struck first
Civil Cases: Conformity Not Allowed; Distinguishing Habit Evidence
General Rule: Character evidence to prove conduct in conformity is not permitted in civil cases
Habit: a person’s regular response to a specific set of circumstances
Rule: Evidence of someone’s habit is admissible to prove that a person acted in accordance with their habit on a particular occasion
Habit can come in to prove conduct in conformity
Civil Cases: Character Admissible if “In Issue”
Character is “in issue” if character is an essential element of a charge, claim or defense
Only a few types of cases where character is in issue:
(1) Defamation - truth is a defense
(2) Negligent entrustment, retention, hiring - the character of the person entrusted, retained, or hired is an element of the claim
(3) Child Custody - parent’s character is in issue
How to prove: ALL methods allowed
- reputation, opinion, and specific acts
Independently Relevant Misconduct (MIMIC)
Evidence of other crimes or misconduct is admissible if these acts are relevant to some issue other than the defendant’s character or propensity to commit the crime charged
Other crimes or acts of misconduct are independently relevant for a non-character purpose - and therefore, admissible
Non-Character Purposes (MIMIC)
- Motive
- Intent
- absence of Mistake or accident
- Identity
- Common scheme or plan
Make sure the defendant is contesting the issue - needs to have PV
Motive
The commission of a prior crime may be evidence of a motive to commit the crime for which the defendant is accused
Intent
In many crimes, such as forgery, passing counterfeit money, larceny by trick, and receiving stolen property, intent is the gravamen of the crime. Evidence that defendant committed prior, similar wrongful acts is admissible to establish guilty knowledge and to negate good faith.
Absence of Mistake or Accident
There are cases in which the defense of accident or mistake may be anticipated. In these situations prosecution evidence of similar misconduct by the defendant is admissible to negate the possibility of mistake or accident.
Identity
Evidence, including misconduct, that connects this defendant to the crime (e.g., theft of gun used in later crime) is admissible. Similarly, evidence that the accused committed prior criminal acts that are so distinctive as to operate as a “signature” may be introduced to prove that the accused committed the act in question (modus operandi)
