Evidence

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?

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).

In its lead editorial in the Sunday edition, a suburban daily newspaper characterized a real estate developer as a "common thief." The developer promptly filed suit against the newspaper for defamation. During the course of the presentation of the plaintiff's case, he sought to put a witness on the stand who is prepared to testify that the plaintiff once saved the life of a fellow soldier in combat. If the newspaper's lawyer objects, should the court rule that the testimony is admissible?

No, because the witness's testimony is not probative of any material issue.

A plaintiff was injured in an automobile accident when her car was hit by a pickup truck driven by the defendant. At trial of her personal injury action, the plaintiff alleges that the defendant was driving on the wrong side of the road in excess of the posted speed limit. The defendant denies these allegations and denies liability for the accident. The plaintiff seeks to introduce evidence that the defendant has a reputation in the community for being a daredevil and for being somewhat irresponsible. In fact, the plaintiff's witness would testify that the defendant is known by all his friends as "the Menace." Is the proffered testimony admissible?

No, it is inadmissible to show that the defendant was negligent on this occasion.

Which of the following is a civil claim where character evidence may be admissible because character is "directly in issue?"

When a person's character itself is at issue in the case, character evidence is not only admissible, but indeed is the best method of proving the issue. Character is said to be at issue in a civil case when proof of a person's character, as a matter of substantive law, is an essential element of a claim or defense. For example, when a defendant in a negligent hiring case is alleged to have hired an unstable employee, the character of the employee is indeed at issue in the case. Defamation cases are another example of where character is at issue (e.g., defendant may use character evidence as part of her affirmative defense that she spoke the truth when she called plaintiff a thief). However, these types of situations are rare. In a typical breach of contract, battery, or product liability case, the character of the parties is not directly at issue. Such circumstantial use of prior behavior patterns for the purpose of drawing the inference that, at the time and place in question, the actor probably acted in accord with her prior behavior pattern is not permitted in civil cases.

In a civil case, when character is directly in issue, that character may be proved by evidence in the form of:

When proof of a person's character, as a matter of substantive law, is an essential element of a claim or defense in a civil action, it is said that character is "directly in issue." Although character is rarely an essential issue in a civil case, character evidence is admissible in such circumstances. Under the Federal Rules, any of the types of evidence (reputation, opinion, or specific acts) may be used to prove character when character is directly in issue.

Character evidence is admissible in a civil case if

Where character is directly in issue in a civil case, character evidence is admissible. A defendant in a criminal case may "open the door" by introducing evidence of his own good character to show his innocence, thus allowing the prosecution to rebut with evidence of his bad character. However, this rule does not apply to civil cases. Where character evidence is allowed in a civil case (i.e., when character is directly at issue), under the Federal Rules, any of the types of character evidence (reputation, opinion, or specific acts) may be used.

Under the Federal Rules, which of the following is an impermissible manner of showing the defendant's good character?

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.

Which of the following is character evidence, rather than habit evidence?

Ben is always in a hurry

defendant offers priest testimony that defendant is of good character in a hit and run accident

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.

While a driver was driving someone else's car, he hit a plaintiff who was walking in a pedestrian right-of-way. The plaintiff sued both the driver and the owner of the car, alleging that the driver had negligently driven the car and that the owner had negligently permitted an unfit driver to use her car. At trial, the plaintiff calls his first witness. The witness testifies that within the last several months he is aware of three instances in which the driver has engaged in reckless driving. Both the driver and the owner object to the admission of this evidence. How should the court rule on the objection?

Overruled as to the case against the owner, but sustained as to the case against the driver. The witness's testimony of three instances of reckless driving by the driver would be considered character evidence. Character evidence is not admissible in a civil case if offered to show that a party probably acted in conformity with that character. Character evidence is admissible in a civil case when the character of a person is an issue in the case. The plaintiff is suing the owner on a negligent entrustment theory, and thus the driver's character as a safe driver is in issue in the case against the owner, but not in the case against the driver himself. (A) is wrong; as stated, the driver's character is in issue in determining whether the owner was negligent. (B) is wrong because specific instances of conduct may be used to prove character when character is an issue in the case. [Fed. R. Evid. 405(B)] (D) is wrong because this is not a criminal case.

A pedestrian sued the driver of a car that hit him, alleging that the driver ran a stop sign. The driver denies this, maintaining that the pedestrian carelessly darted into the street. At trial, the pedestrian calls her husband to testify for her. The husband offers testimony that the pedestrian invariably looks both ways before crossing a street. The driver objects to the admission of this evidence. How should the court rule on the driver's objection?

Overruled, because it tends to establish the pedestrian's habit.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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?

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).

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?

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.

A character witness testifies regarding the defendant's good character for peacefulness. The prosecution may rebut this evidence by:

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.