ADMISSIBLE CHARACTER EVIDENCE

Alice is prosecuted for criminal tax evasion

Alice offers the testimony of her employer who testifies,

“everyone in the shop says that Alice is a as honest as the day is long”.
The testimony is:
ADMISSIBLE character evidence;
Reputation evidence-

404(a) generally prohibits the introduction of character evidence for

circumstantial purposes, i.e to prove action in conformity with that
character trait.
BUT RULE 404(a)(1) allows reputation and opinion evidence of a
criminal defendant’s character to be offered by the defendant.
404(a) “a defendant may offer evidence of the defendant’s pertinent
trait”

Lee Is prosecuted for the first degree murder of his neighbor, Stan

In support of his defense of self defense, Lee offers the testimony of

Sam, who testifies, “Everyone in the neighborhood knows that the
deceased, Stan, was a very volatile and violent person.” This
testimony is
Admissible character evidence,
404(a)(2) a crim defendant can offer evidence of the victim’s pertinent
character trait. Because this is a self-defense case, the victim’s violent
character is relevant. Such evidence ,just take the form of reputation or
opinion and this is reputation evidence, so it is admissible under Rule
404(a)
In support of his defense of self defense, Lee offers the testimony of
Sam, who testifies, “Everyone in the neighborhood knows that the
deceased, Stan, was a very volatile and violent person.”
Can the prosecutor ask Sam on Cross examination whether he had
heard that on three different occasions Stan walked away from
someone who had punched him in the face without so much as an
unkind word?

Yes, because this is a permissible use of prior acts evidence of

character

Rule 405(b) permits the opponent of a character witness to challenge

the credibility of that character witness on cross examination by delving
into the basis of support for the reputation or opinion testimony
offered by the character witness. That can be done by asking questions
that refer to prior specific acts by the person whose character the
character witness has testified about. Because this charact witness
offered reputation evidence, it can be challenged by asking if the
witness had “heard” about contradictory specific acts by the person
about whose character the witness testified.

In support of his defense of self-defense, Lee testifies that the

deceased, Stan, broke into his home, and came at Lee with a knife,
threatening to kill him.
The prosecution subsequently calls a witness who testifies that Stan is
known throughout town as the calmest, most passive and peaceful
person on earth. This latter piece of testimony is
Admissible
Under Rule 404(a)(2) when the defendant offers evidence that the
alleged victim was the first aggressor, as is the case here, the
prosecution can respond with opinion or reputation evidence of the
victim’s character for peacefulness if it is in a homicide case. This is a
homicide case. The witness offered reputation evidence and so it is
admissible under Rule 404(a)(2).

INADMISSIBLE CHARACTER EVIDENCE

Alice is prosecuted for criminal tax evasion

**The prosecution offers testimony of the defendant’s reputation for

being a cheat.
The evidence is INADMISSIBLE

The prosecution can only offer evidence of the defendant’s character

after the defendant has put his character in issue by offering admissible
evidence of his good character.

Here, defendant did not open the door

Thus, prosecution cannot offer evidence.

Alice offers the testimony of her employer, who testifies, “On the few
occasions when Alice arrives late for work, she always comes to my
office to let me know that she was tardy.” The testimony is
Inadmissible character evidence
use of specific acts evidence of the defendant’s character is prohibited
by Rule 404(b).
**The defendant’s character is not directly at issue

Alice offers the testimony of her employer, who testifies, “Everyone in

the shop says that Alice is as honest as the day is long” Prosecution
then offers the testimony of Alice’s neighbor, who testifies that he
had caught Alice on three of four separate occasions stealing
equipment from his garage. This testimony is:
Inadmissible character evidence
Once the defendant opens the door to her good character, the
prosecution can offer evidence of her bad character.

BUT that evidence must take form of opinion or reputation when

offered by the prosecution’s character witness, as opposed to the
prosecution’s cross-examination of the defendant’s character witness.
Specific acts evidence of character

Because the neighbor was the prosecution’s witness, she can only
testify in the form of reputation or opinion; this is evidence of prior
specific acts, so it is excluded under Rule 404(b).

Alice’s defense to the government’s charge is that any mistake she

made in her tax return was unintended mathematical miscalculation.
The prosecution offers the testimony of Alice’s accountant, who
testifies that for the past five years, Alice has instructed him to
understate her income and create a home business deduction even
though she does not work out of her home. This testimony is:
Admissible, because it goes to the question of Alice’s intent.
404(b) precludes the use of specific acts evidence to establish the
defendants character when it is offered to prove that the defendant
acted consistently with the character trait in the instant crim case. BUT
where the specific acts evidence is not offered to prove character but
something else, such as the defendant’s intent, then it is not prohibited
under Rule 404(b). The defendant has put her intent in issue and that is
what this evidence goes to prove so it is admissible under Rule 404(b).

Lee Is prosecuted for the first degree murder of his neighbor, Stan
In support of his defense of self defense, Lee offers the testimony of
Sam, who testifies, “Everyone in the neighborhood knows that the
deceased, Stan, was a very volatile and violent person.”
The Prosecution subsequently offers the testimony of another of Lee’s
neighbors, Karen who testifies, “I have known the defendant, Lee for
more than ten years and he is a very violent person.” Karen’s
testimony is:
Admissible

404(a)(1) Criminal Defendant has opened the door by offering

evidence of victim’s character through appropriate reputation or
opinion
**Prosecution can respond with reputation or opinion evidence
concerning that same character trait in the defendant.

****In support of his defense of self-defense, Lee offers the

testimony of Sam, who testifies, “Everyone in the neighborhood
knows that the deceased, Stan, was a very volatile and violent
person.”
The Prosecution subsequently offers the testimony of another of Lee’s
neighbors, Karen who testifies, “I have known the defendant, Lee for
more than ten years and he is a very violent person.”
On cross-examination of Sam, can the prosecutor ask whether or not
he had heard that Stan had been convicted on two prior occasions of
lying to a grand jury and perjury at trial?

This is specific acts evidence of character which is generally prohibited

by Rule 404(a) when used to prove character and action conformity
therewith.
Under Rule 405(a) a character witness’s credibility as a character
witness can be challenged on cross examination by inquiring into the
depth of the character witness’ knowledge of the person about whose
character he or she is testifying. On direct examination, Sam offered
reputation evidence of the victim Stan’s character for violence.
This is permitted under Rule 404(a)(2) because it cam in the form of
reputation evidence.
Under Rule 405(a), on cross-examination of that victim character
witness, the witness can be asked about “relevant” specific instances of
conduct by the person to whose character (the victim) he testified.
Here, however, the cross examination of character witness Sam
inquired into specific acts of lying by victim Stan when Sam had testified
only about Stan’s violent character.
Consequently, this is not evidence of “relevant” prior acts because it
goes to a character trait of the victim, truthfulness, which was not
discussed by the character witness on direct examination.
Rules 608 and 609 dealing with impeaching a witness with prior acts,
even convictions, going to truthfulness are not applicable here because
the evidence here is going to the character of the victim, Stan, who was
not a witness.

In support of his defense of self-defense, Lee offers the testimony of

Sam, who testifies, “Everyone in the neighborhood knows that the
deceased, Stan, was a very volatile and violent person.”
When the prosecution subsequently offers testimony of Greg, another
of Lee’s neigbors, can Greg testify that he saw Lee beat up two of his
co-employees?

No, Inadmissible because it calls for the use of prior acts evidence of
character.

The defendant offered reputation evidence of the victim’s character.

The prosecution can, under Rule 404(a)(1) offer evidence of that same
character trait of the defendant, but it must be the same character trait
of the defendant, but it must be the same character trait and must be
in the form of opinion or reputation evidence.
Here, the prosecution is offering specific acts of evidence. Which is
prohibited by Rule 404(b). *******Although it goes to the same
character trait of violence that the defendant put in play with respect
to the victim, it is in the prohibited form of specific acts rather than
opinion or reputation, so it is prohibited by Rule 404(b).