Evidence - Character Part 1 Flashcards
Character Evidence Definition
Evidence that refers to a person’s general disposition or a certain trait. Basically evidence that shows the way a person is. Like being honest or dishonest, peaceful or violent, cautious or reckless, etc.
Generally, character evidence is disfavored. That’s because it’s too prejudicial. But there are times when it’s admissible. There are 3 different purposes for offering character evidence:
1) Propensity/Conduct in Conformity
2) Character At Issue
3) Impeachment for being Untruthful
Purposes for Admitting Character Evidence 1/3 - Propensity Evidence / “Conduct in Conformity”
Character evidence may be admissible when used to show that a person acted in conformity with a particular trait. In other words, acting in propensity with that trait.
If D = violent, more likely to have murdered victim.
If D = dishonest, tax fraud likely
Purposes for Admitting Character Evidence 2/3 - Character At Issue
This is very rare. It’s when a person’s character is actually in issue in the case. The person’s character is a material element. The person’s character has to be proven as part of the claim/defense and only comes up with some civil claims.
1) Defamation
2) Negligent Entrustment
3) Parental Custody
Purposes for Admitting Character Evidence 3/3 - Impeachment for being Untruthful
This is when you offer evidence that the witness has a bad character for truthfulness. Basically you put your witness on the stand to say that the other enemy side’s witness is a liar. This is presented solely for purpose of attacking credibility.
TRUTHFULNESS is the ONLY relevant character trait for impeachment in this context.
We are technically offering character evidence to show conduct in conformity, but we treat impeachment as its own thing.
Methods for Proving Character
There are 3 methods to prove character evidence.
1) Reputation Evidence
2) Opinion Evidence
3) Specific Acts/Prior Behavior Evidence
1) Reputation = calling a character witness to testify about the person’s character for a particular trait. Remember the hearsay exception for “statements offered to prove a person’s reputation” is not kept on out on hearsay grounds.
2) Opinion = involves calling character witness to testify that they know a person and that person’s character for a particular trait is either good/bad
NOTE: Reputation and Opinion are treated equally and go together. If one is allowed, so is the other. Neither method involves referencing specific acts.
3) Specific Acts/Prior Behavior = involves talking about prior acts (always volunteering, cheated on taxes, etc). This is generally NOT allowed for the default purpose to show conduct in conformity.
Criminal Cases: Defendant’s Character to Show Conduct in Conformity/Propensity Evidence
In criminal cases, you CANNOT introduce character evidence to show conduct in conformity.
Policy: it’s too prejudicial and not probative enough.
EXCEPTIONS:
1) Prosecution cannot initiate the use of character evidence in a criminal case in the prosecution’s case in chief. But D can introduce evidence of his own good character as long as the character trait is relevant to defending against a particular charge (like peacefulness in the context of a murder trial). D can only use reputation or opinion evidence. D cannot introduce specific acts.
HOWEVER, once D introduces character evidence, it’s fair game for the prosecution to rebut it via impeachment.
Violent character is NOT a material element of a murder charge btw. Don’t need to prove D is a violent person, violent propensity is not an element of a murder charge. Character as an element of claim arises only in civil cases.
A D on trial for murder could bring both reputation and opinion evidence about how he’s such a peaceful person. This is admissible because it’s D’s case in chief. Specific acts NOT allowed though to show conduct in conformity even in D’s case in chief.
Criminal Cases: Prosecution Rebuttal of D’s Character Evidence
Like D, prosecution can put up reputation and opinion evidence for the same trait that D’s character witness testified about. Plus, P can impeach using specific acts. They can ask the character witnesses stuff like “did you know about {D’s bad act}?” as long as there is a good faith basis for thinking it happened. Specific acts cannot come in to prove conduct in conformity. This is in crossX of D’s character witness.
The prosecution can also bring in character witnesses of their own to testify that D has a reputation for X trait once D has brought in an opinion witness to testify about X trait.
As prosecutor, can you then try to prove the “did you know” specific act actually happened? No. This is extrinsic evidence (evidence of D’s specific act not directly related to the facts at issue in the case) and not allowed. The prosecution must accept D’s character witness’ answer to the “did you know” question. Can’t go further to prove it happened.
D does not open the door to character evidence simply by testifying on his own behalf.
Criminal Cases: Victim’s Character to Show Conduct in Conformity in Self-Defense Case
When can you use evidence of the victim’s character? Basically happens when D wants to show that the victim is a bad person and D killed the victim in self-defense.
Rule: criminal D may offer evidence of alleged victim’s pertinent trait, which opens the door for prosecutor to rebut it or offer evidence of D’s character for the same X trait.
D must initiate even though it’s the victim’s character. Must still be pertinent character trait of the victim, which will almost always be about violence in a self-defense argument. That’s pretty much the extent of this one.
D’s self-defense claim more likely to be true. D was just protecting himself from the victim. Victim is violent person. How does crim D prove the violent character of victim? REPUTATION and OPINION only to prove conduct in conformity. If D does this, prosecution has options: 1) rebuttal evidence with their own witnesses about victim’s peaceful character using reputation and opinion; 2) can cross X D’s witnesses with specific acts; or 3) prosecutor can rebut with evidence of D’s bad character for violence even if D didn’t introduce evidence of good character. That’s a big exception to the general rule that the prosecution can’t open the door. Basically P can now show not only that V is peaceful but also that D is violent. Countering D’s slander of V with more slander of D.
