Victim's Character & Self-Defense
Question: In a homicide trial, Defendant seeks to introduce evidence that the victim had a reputation for violent behavior to show the victim was the first aggressor. Prosecution objects.
Answer: Admissible under 404(a)(2)(B) — defendant may offer evidence of victim’s pertinent trait; opens the door to prosecution rebuttal.
Question: Defendant charged with murder offers proof he is “a nonviolent person.” Prosecution objects relevance.
Answer: Admissible — Defendant may offer evidence of his own pertinent trait under 404(a)(2)(A).
Question: Defendant charged with burglary. Prosecution seeks to show Defendant committed four similar burglaries in the past three years to show he is the “type” to burglarize.
Answer: Inadmissible under 404(b)(1) — impermissible propensity.
Question: In a sexual assault trial, prosecution wants to introduce Defendant’s prior sexual assaults committed 10 years earlier. Defendant objects improper propensity.
Answer: Admissible under Rule 413 — prior sexual assaults admissible to show propensity.
In a civil negligence case arising from a car accident, Defendant wants to call a witness to testify: “In my opinion, Defendant is a very careful driver,” to show Defendant did not act negligently on the day of the crash. Is the testimony admissible?
No. FRE 404(a)(1) bars using character evidence in civil cases to prove the person acted consistently with that character trait. You CAN use character evidence to prove conduct in conformity when character itself is an essential element of a claim, charge, or defense. Carefulness is not an essential element of negligence, so it is inadmissible.
Question: After Defendant introduces evidence that the victim was violent, prosecution offers testimony that Defendant has a peaceful reputation. Defendant objects.
Answer: Admissible — prosecution may introduce evidence of Defendant’s same trait to rebut under 404(a)(2)(B)(ii).
Question: Same case. Prosecution now calls a witness to testify Defendant is known for violent outbursts.
Answer: Admissible — prosecution can rebut once Defendant opens the door.
Question: Same burglary case. Prosecution now offers the prior burglaries to show identity via distinctive modus operandi.
Answer: Admissible under 404(b)(2) — non-propensity purpose (identity through signature method).
Question: Defendant charged with child molestation. Prosecution offers Defendant’s prior child molestation conviction. Defendant argues 404(b) applies.
Answer: Admissible under Rule 414 — prior child molestation admissible to show propensity.
Question: Defendant offers specific acts of generosity to show he is not the type to steal. Prosecution objects.
Answer: Inadmissible — 405(a) prohibits specific instances on direct; allowed only on cross.
Question: In an assault trial, Defendant claims the victim attacked first. Defendant offers evidence of specific violent acts by the victim committed over the last year.
Answer: Inadmissible on direct — 405(a) allows only reputation/opinion; specific instances allowed only on cross.
Question: Defendant charged with tax fraud offers evidence of past instances of honesty (returning lost wallets). Prosecution objects.
Answer: Inadmissible — honesty is not a pertinent trait for tax fraud; trait must be pertinent to charged offense.
Question: In homicide case, prosecution offers evidence that Defendant previously threatened third parties to show Defendant acted violently here.
Answer: Inadmissible — improper propensity under 404(b)(1).
Question: In a civil sexual assault case, plaintiff seeks to introduce Defendant’s past sexual assaults. Defense objects.
Answer: Admissible under Rule 415 — prior sexual misconduct allowed in civil sexual-assault/child-molestation actions.
Question: Prosecution cross-examines Defendant’s character witness: “Did you know Defendant lied on his mortgage application last year?”
Answer: Admissible under 405(a) — specific instances may be asked on cross to test foundation.
Question: However, Defendant offers those same specific acts to show Defendant’s state of mind (reasonable fear).
Answer: Admissible — when offered for Defendant’s state of mind, 404(a) does not bar specific instances.
Question: Defendant introduces evidence of his own good character for honesty. Prosecution responds with evidence Defendant was fired for embezzlement.
Answer: Admissible — defendant opened the door; prosecution may rebut with specific instances on cross.
Question: Same case. Prosecution offers those threats to show Defendant’s intent to harm the victim because they occurred minutes before the incident.
Answer: Admissible under 404(b)(2) — intent is a permissible non-propensity purpose.
Question: Defendant charged with sexual assault wants to introduce evidence that victim engaged in sexual conduct with other partners to show she consented.
Answer: Inadmissible under Rule 412(a) — rape shield; prior sexual behavior with others barred unless exception applies.
Question: Defense attempts to admit police report saying victim once assaulted someone else.
Answer: Inadmissible — extrinsic evidence of specific instances not allowed under 405(a).
Question: In self-defense case, Defendant seeks to prove victim committed prior violent acts unknown to Defendant at the time.
Answer: Admissible to show victim was likely the aggressor (404(a)(2)(B)), but only through reputation/opinion on direct.
Question: Defendant in a civil battery case offers evidence of the victim’s peaceful reputation to show victim was unlikely the aggressor.
Answer: Inadmissible — peacefulness is not a pertinent trait; only violent character of victim is pertinent.
Question: Prosecution wants to offer Defendant’s tattoos saying “Born to Fight” to show Defendant has violent character.
Answer: Inadmissible — cannot use lifestyle or tattoos as propensity evidence.
Question: Plaintiff in a sexual assault case introduces evidence that Defendant made sexual advances toward coworkers recently. Defendant objects improper character.
Answer: Possibly admissible under 404(b)(2) for motive, intent, or plan, subject to 403; but cannot be used purely for propensity unless 413–415 applies.
Question: Prosecution offers evidence Defendant has a habit of always double-checking cash registers to show he likely did so on the day of the theft.
Answer: Admissible — habit (406) is distinct from character and admissible to show conduct.