Evidence Learning Questions - Set 1 Flashcards
In which of the following situations may the prosecution introduce evidence of the defendant’s bad character to establish she probably committed the crime charged?
A
Where character is directly in issue in the case.
B
Where the defendant first introduces evidence of her good character.
C
Where the defendant’s bad character shows that she is more likely to have committed the crime of which she is accused.
D
Where the defendant chooses to testify.
B
If the defendant introduces evidence of her good character, she puts her character in issue and the prosecution may rebut by presenting evidence of the defendant’s bad character.
The general rule is that the prosecution cannot initiate evidence of the defendant’s bad character merely to show that she is more likely to have committed the crime of which she is accused. However, if the defendant puts her good character into issue, the prosecution may rebut with evidence of the defendant’s bad character.
Character evidence is admissible in civil cases where character is directly in issue (i.e., defamation, negligent hiring). This rule does not apply to criminal cases.
A defendant who testifies does not put her character in issue merely by testifying in the case; however, she does put her credibility into issue by testifying, and may be impeached.
A criminal defendant may introduce evidence of her own good character to show her innocence of the alleged crime.
Under the Federal Rules, which of the following is an impermissible manner of showing the defendant’s good character?
A
Calling a witness to give his personal opinion concerning the trait in issue of the defendant.
B
Calling a witness to testify to the defendant’s specific acts of conduct to prove the trait in issue.
C
Calling a witness to testify as to the defendant’s good reputation for the trait involved in the case.
D
Calling a witness to testify that he has heard nothing bad regarding the defendant’s reputation for the trait involved in the case.
B
A defendant may call a qualified witness to testify as to the defendant’s good reputation (or that he has heard nothing bad) for the trait involved in the case. Under Federal Rule 405, the witness may also give his personal opinion concerning that trait of the defendant. However, the witness may not testify as to specific acts of conduct of the defendant to prove the trait in issue.
If a defendant in a criminal case presents evidence of his own good character for a particular trait, which of the following is a permissible method of rebutting this evidence?
A
The prosecution asks the defendant’s character witness whether he has heard about a bad act committed by the defendant, and after the witness denies it, the prosecution proves it by extrinsic evidence
B
The prosecution calls another witness to testify as to the defendant’s bad reputation for the same trait
C
The prosecution calls another witness to testify about a bad act committed by the defendant
D
The prosecution introduces documentary proof of a bad act committed by the defendant (e.g., a criminal conviction)
B
If the defendant puts her character in issue, the prosecution may rebut the defendant’s character evidence by calling qualified witnesses to testify to the defendant’s bad reputation for the particular trait involved. The witness may also testify as to his own personal opinion regarding the trait at issue of the defendant. However, introducing evidence about specific acts by the defendant is not allowed (whether by calling witnesses or introducing documentary proof of the act).
If the defendant puts her character in issue by having a character witness testify as to his opinion of the defendant or the defendant’s reputation, the prosecution may test the character witness by cross-examination regarding the basis for his opinion or knowledge of the reputation that he has testified about (i.e., whether the witness knows of or has heard about specific instances of conduct by the defendant). If the witness denies knowledge of these specific instances of conduct, however, the prosecutor may NOT prove them by extrinsic evidence.
A character witness testifies regarding the defendant’s good character for peacefulness. The prosecution may rebut this evidence by:
A
Calling the defendant’s girlfriend as a rebuttal witness to testify that he beat her three weeks prior to this incident
B
Asking the witness, “Did you know that the defendant beat his girlfriend three weeks prior to this incident?”
C
Showing the witness an arrest report indicating that the defendant beat his girlfriend three weeks prior to this incident
D
Asking the witness, “Have you heard that the defendant embezzled money from his previous employer?”
B
The prosecution may test the character witness by cross-examination regarding the basis for his opinion or knowledge of the reputation that he has testified about. Under Federal Rule 405(a), cross-examination inquiry is allowable as to whether the character witness knows of, as well as whether he has heard of, specific instances of misconduct by the defendant. Therefore, it is proper for the prosecution to ask the witness about the defendant’s prior violent act. However, it would not be proper to ask about the defendant’s prior dishonest act (embezzling money) because the witness testified about the defendant’s character for violence, not his character for truthfulness.
If the witness denies knowledge of specific instances of misconduct by the defendant, the prosecutor may not prove them by extrinsic evidence (e.g., a rebuttal witness or an arrest report); he is limited to inquiry on cross-examination.
During the defendant’s trial for embezzlement, the defense calls a witness to testify as to the defendant’s reputation for honesty and veracity. The prosecution objects.
Should the court allow the testimony?
A Yes, because the prosecution put the defendant’s character for truthfulness in issue by filing charges against him.
B Yes, because it is admissible character evidence.
C No, because a party cannot bolster the testimony of his witness until he has been impeached.
D No, because the evidence is inadmissible hearsay.
B
The court should allow the testimony. A criminal defendant may introduce character testimony about his good reputation for a pertinent trait to show that he is innocent of the charged crime. Here, the defendant is offering the testimony of a witness as to his reputation for honesty and veracity, which is a trait directly pertinent to his embezzlement charge. Therefore, the testimony should be allowed, and the prosecution will have the opportunity to rebut the testimony on cross-examination. (A) is incorrect because only the defendant can put his character in issue, and the filing of criminal charges does not have the effect of putting the defendant’s character in issue. (C) is incorrect because there is no impeachment issue here and the defense is not attempting to bolster the testimony of its witness (which is generally done after the credibility of the witness is attacked on cross-examination), but rather to offer an opinion as to the defendant’s character. (D) is incorrect because, to the extent that the witness’s testimony is hearsay, it falls within the exception to the hearsay rule for reputation evidence of a person’s character.
The defendant was on trial on a hit and run charge, whereby the prosecution asserted that the defendant’s vehicle struck and injured an elderly pedestrian, and then the defendant sped away from the scene of the accident without stopping to assess the pedestrian’s injuries or to render assistance. The defendant took the stand and denied the charge. A priest is ready to testify that he has known the defendant for 12 years, and that the defendant is a highly responsible person who would not run away from his obligations by leaving the scene of an accident.
If the prosecution objects to the priest’s proposed testimony, should the court bar the priest from testifying?
A No, because the testimony shows that the defendant is a person of good character.
B No, because the testimony is habit evidence tending to show that it was unlikely that the defendant was the perpetrator.
C Yes, because one may not use character evidence to bolster one’s own testimony.
D Yes, because the prosecution has not made an issue of the defendant’s character.
A
The priest’s testimony as to the defendant’s responsible nature is admissible as circumstantial evidence that he was not driving the hit-and-run vehicle. The accused in a criminal case can introduce evidence of his good character to show his innocence of the alleged crime. Federal Rule 405 allows the defendant to call a qualified witness to testify as to his personal opinion concerning a trait of the defendant that is involved in the case. In this case, whether the defendant was the driver of the hit-and-run vehicle is a critical issue in the case; thus, testimony that the defendant is a responsible person who would not leave the scene of an accident pertains to a relevant character trait. The priest, having known the defendant for 12 years, is qualified to give his personal opinion as to the defendant’s character. The court should therefore permit the priest to testify. (B) is incorrect because the priest’s testimony is character evidence rather than habit evidence. Both habit evidence and character evidence are admissible to show how a person probably acted on a particular occasion. However, habit evidence describes one’s regular response to a specific set of circumstances, while character evidence describes one’s disposition in respect to general traits. Here, there is no specific repeated situation that the defendant regularly responded to (such as regularly failing to stop at a certain stop sign). Rather, it is the defendant’s general trait of responsibility that is being offered as evidence. (C) is incorrect because the priest’s testimony is admissible as relevant character evidence. As a general rule, a party may not bolster the testimony of his witness until the witness has been impeached. Here, even though the priest’s testimony bolsters the defendant’s unimpeached testimony that he did not drive the hit-and-run vehicle, it is independently admissible as character evidence that supports the defendant’s case. The fact that the defendant is testifying in his own defense when the priest is called to support him does not make the priest’s testimony inadmissible. (D) is incorrect because it reverses the rule. In a criminal case, the defense does not need to have the prosecution put the defendant’s character in issue before the defense can rebut it; the defense can initiate evidence of the defendant’s character. On the other hand, the prosecution cannot make an issue of the defendant’s character until the defendant has elected to put his character in issue.
The defendant is on trial for assault with a deadly weapon. The sole prosecution witness is the victim, who testifies as to his version of the events leading up to and including the charged assault. The defense’s first witness contradicts the victim’s testimony that the defendant engaged in an unprovoked attack. The witness testifies that the victim pulled a knife on the defendant and that the defendant, in defending himself, wrested the knife away and accidentally stabbed the victim. The defense’s next and final witness intends to testify that the defendant’s reputation in the community for honesty and veracity is very good. Aware of the intended testimony, the prosecutor moves in limine to exclude it.
How should the court rule?
A For the state, because the defendant may not introduce evidence of his character to prove that he acted in conformity therewith.
B For the state, because the testimony as to the defendant’s honesty and veracity is irrelevant.
C For the defendant, because a criminal defendant may put his character in issue.
D For the defendant, because a criminal defendant’s reputation for honesty and veracity is always at issue.
B
The court should rule for the state. A criminal defendant, to show his innocence of the charged crime, may call a qualified witness to provide reputation or opinion testimony regarding the defendant’s good character for a trait involved in the case (i.e., to prove that he acted in conformity with that good trait during the events at issue). Therefore, (A) is incorrect. Here, however, the defendant is charged with a crime of violence, so his character for honesty and veracity is not pertinent to the case. Furthermore, although any witness may be impeached with reputation or opinion evidence of his bad character for honesty and veracity, the defendant did not testify. For these reasons, the proffered evidence is irrelevant. Thus, (C) is incorrect. A criminal defendant may offer evidence of character for a certain trait only when the the trait is relevant to the charges, and so (D) is a misstatement of law.
The defendant is being tried for murder in the bludgeoning death of his brother. The defendant denies any involvement in the crime. He calls a witness to the stand, who testifies that, in his opinion, the defendant is a nonviolent, peaceable man.
Which of the following, if offered by the prosecution, would most likely be admissible?
A A neighbor’s testimony that the witness has beaten his wife on several occasions.
B A police officer’s testimony that the defendant has a general reputation in the community as a violent person.
C A neighbor’s testimony that the defendant has a reputation for being untruthful.
D Evidence that the defendant has a conviction for aggravated battery.
B
Testimony of the defendant’s reputation as a violent person is admissible to rebut the defendant’s character evidence. The general rule is that the prosecution cannot initiate evidence of the bad character of the defendant merely to show that he is more likely to have committed the crime of which he is accused. However, if the defendant puts his character in issue by having a character witness testify as to his opinion of the defendant, the prosecution may rebut with evidence of the defendant’s bad character. One means of rebutting a defendant’s character evidence is by calling qualified witnesses to testify to the defendant’s bad reputation for the particular trait involved in the case. Here, the defendant put his character in issue by having his witness testify to the defendant’s nonviolent nature, which is relevant to whether he committed the crime charged. The prosecution, assuming that it can show that the police officer has knowledge of the defendant’s reputation in the community, can have the officer testify that the defendant had a reputation as a violent person. (A) is incorrect because the witness’s credibility cannot be attacked by extrinsic evidence of specific instances of misconduct. While any matter that tends to prove or disprove the credibility of a witness is relevant for purposes of impeachment, extrinsic evidence of the witness’s bad acts is not permitted to attack the witness’s character for truthfulness. Unless the misconduct was the basis for a criminal conviction, for which a record of the judgment may be offered, bad acts may only be inquired about during cross-examination. Thus, a neighbor’s testimony of the witness’s specific instances of misconduct would not be admissible. (C) is incorrect. While the defendant has “opened the door” to evidence of his bad character by presenting testimony of his good character, the evidence must pertain to the particular trait involved in the case. Here, the defendant’s capacity for violence has been placed in issue by the defendant, but his reputation for truthfulness is not relevant to whether he has committed the crime for which he is charged. (And because the defendant has not placed his credibility in issue by taking the stand as a witness, his reputation for truthfulness cannot be offered for impeachment purposes.) (D) is incorrect because the basic rule is that when a person is charged with one crime, extrinsic evidence of his other crimes or misconduct is inadmissible if offered solely to establish a criminal disposition, regardless of whether the defendant has placed his character in issue. [Fed. R. Evid. 404(b)] While evidence of other crimes is admissible if it is independently relevant to some other issue (e.g., motive, intent, or identity), the defendant’s battery conviction in this case appears to have no relevance other than as evidence of his violent disposition. It is therefore inadmissible.
