Character and Habit Evidence, Rape Shield: 404, 405, 406, 412-415 Flashcards
(42 cards)
How is character evidence defined? What determines if it’s being admitted?
Character evidence ⇒ anything that suggests how a person behaves
+ Character evidence analysis turns on whether proof that tends to prove character is being offered for the forbidden purpose (“propensity”) or for some other permitted purpose
+ If offered for any other purpose beyond propensity, character evidence is admissible under R.403 and other rules of evidence
+ Main question: What is this character evidence being offered to prove?
What are the mental checks for evidence?
Mental Checks:
- Civil or Criminal?
- Who is offering the evidence?
- If Criminal, has the D testified?
- What type of evidence? (Special rules around testimonial)
Why is propensity of character evidence generally not allowed?
+ Jurors may overvalue character proof – describing general behavior only
The more broad the character trait, the less predictive its power
+ Jurors may punish a person for reprehensible conduct even when that conduct is not at issue in the current case – moral overtones
+ Consumes time and risks confusing jurors about issue at trial – “sideshow”
“Slight probative value and may be highly prejudicial… tends to distract the trier of fact from the main question of what actually happened on the particular occasion
What are the primary purposes for character evidence?
1) Act propensity: If someone acts a certain way, we can prove they did the bad thing
2) Proving traits when it’s an element in cause of action/claim/defense
3) Credibility: If the person testifying is believable
4) Demonstrate intent/motive
What are the types of propensity evidence?
1) Act: Because a person is a certain way, they must have acted in a way that relates to the charges in the case
+ Banned in all civil cases
+ Some exceptions in criminal cases in R.404: D has to open the door
+ Exceptions to exceptions: Rape shield. R. 412, Bringing in previous crimes D committed for propensity
2) Character: Pertinent trait to the charges at issue
+ Peacefulness v. Violence
+ Honest v. Dishonesty → can be mixed up with credibility (can be one, the other or both!)
What does Rule 404(a)(1) say?
R. 404 Character Evidence
(a) Character Evidence.
(1) Prohibited Uses. Evidence of a person’s character or character trait is not admissible to prove that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character or trait.
What does R.404(a)(2)(A) say?
Rule 404: Character Evidence; Crimes, or Other Acts
(a) Character Evidence
(2) Exceptions for a Defendant or Victim in a Criminal Case
The following exceptions apply in a criminal case:
(A) Defendant may offer evidence of his pertinent trait and if the evidence is admitted, the prosecutor may offer evidence to rebut it.
What does R.404 (a)(2)(B) say? What are its limitations?
R.404 Character Evidence; Crimes or Other Acts
(a) Character Evidence
(2) Exceptions for Defendant or Victim in a Criminal Case
(B) Subject to R.412 limitations, D may offer evidence of an alleged victim’s pertinent trait, and if the evidence is admitted, the prosecution may
(i) offer evidence to rebut it
(ii) offer evidence of D’s same trait
+ Relevant only in self-defense cases
+ Evidence offered must comply with R.405(a) requirements
What does Rule 404(a)(2)(C) say? What are its limitations?
R.404: Character Evidence; Crimes, or Other Acts
(a) Character Evidence
(2) Exceptions for a Defendant or Victim in a Criminal Case
(C) In a homicide case, the prosecutor may offer evidence of the alleged victim’s trait of peacefulness to rebut evidence that the victim was the first aggressor.
+ Limited to criminal homicide cases, NOT EVEN attempted homicide
What does Rule 404(b)(1) say?
Rule 404: Character Evidence, Crimes, or Other Acts
(b) Other Crimes, Wrongs, or Acts.
(1) Prohibited Uses.
Evidence of any other crime, wrong, or act is not admissible to prove a person’s character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character.
What does Rule 405(a) say?
R. 405: Methods of Proving Character
(a) Reputation or Opinion
When evidence of a person’s character or character trait is admissible, it may be proved by testimony about the person’s reputation or by testimony in the form of an opinion.
On cross examination of character witness, the court may allow an inquiry into relevant specific instances of the person’s conduct.
When can reputation, opinion, and specific acts evidence be admitted (cross or direct)?
+ Reputation (Direct) → what people in a relevant community say about a particular person’s character
+ Opinion (Direct) → what an individual who knows another person well thinks of that other person’s character (as opposed to what the individual has heard other people say about that character)
+ Specific acts (Cross Examination) → Specific instances of a person’s behavior that reveal something about his/her character
Hypo: D is on trial for assault. He offers witness testimony that he’s a peaceful man, then P offers witness testimony to the contrary. D objects. How should the court rule?
Objection: improper character evidence
Response: Pertinence to the crime involved under rule 404(a)(2)(A)
Ruling: Overruled
What does Rule 404(b)(2) say?
Rule 404: Character Evidence, Crimes, or Other Acts (b) Crimes, Wrongs, or Other Acts (2) Permitted Uses Evidence of crimes, wrongs, or other acts may be admissible for another purpose such as \+ proving motive \+ opportunity \+ intent \+ preparation \+ plan \+ knowledge \+ identity \+ absence of mistake \+ lack of accident
Can 404(b)(2) apply to uncharged misconduct and acquittals?
Yes.
404(b)(2) also applies to uncharged misconduct, as long as occurrence of the earlier crime is shown by the appropriate standard of proof required for that jurisdiction
Acquittals only show that the state could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt, but does not prove innocence.
+ Prosecutors could offer sufficient evidence to enable a reasonable jury to find guilt by a preponderance of the evidence under R.402(b)(2) even though a different jury has entered an acquittal
+ NOT double jeopardy, using prior case to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the prior act happened and how it relates to an element of the crime at-issue
What is the justification for Rule 404(a)(2)(A)?
1) D is typically outmatched by P’s resources – give D the option to point to his character as evidence that he didn’t do it. Act of mercy to D
2) Warning to Ds introducing character evidence – opens the door for P to rebut
What is the difference between pertinence and relevance as it applies to Rule 404(a)(2)(a)?
Pertinence is key ⇒ traits involved in the offense charged
Relevance ⇒ ANY tendency to make the existence of a fact that is of consequence to determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without evidence
How to distinguish between pertinence and relevance? It depends on the facts of the case and how the court weighs R.403
+ A person’s general character for being law abiding has some probative force and many courts would allow criminal Ds to admit at least some proof of the trait
+ BUT as the evidence becomes cumulative or time consuming, courts retain discretion to exclude as the waste of time substantially outweighs probative force
True or false: Rule 404(a)(2)(B) does not allow prosecutor to attack D’s character
False. 404(a)(2)(B) also allows prosecutor to attack D’s character on the same trait ⇒ D opens the door to an attack on his own character by the prosecution that would otherwise be barred (risky)
How does Dowling v. U.S. illustrate the concept of 404(b)(2) in relation to R.403?
Dowling v. U.S.
+ “Because a jury might conclude by a preponderance of the evidence that Dowling was the masked man… even if it did not believe by a reasonable doubt.”
+ The strength of the evidence establishing the similar act is one of the factors the court may consider when conducting the R.403 balancing
True or false: Just because someone nominally offers other-acts evidence, the evidence does not automatically avoid R.404’s propensity ban
True.
+ Prosecution could point to evidence to prove intent, but clearly it’s propensity
+ Proof of “lack of intent” would also fail
Ex: Evidence relevant to show that P could have actually committed a crime (OK) versus using evidence to show that P is the type of person who commits such crimes and acts in accordance (NOT OK)
+ Using the words from R.404(b)(2) don’t will evidence from propensity to other acts
What is the fine line between character evidence (act propensity) and character evidence (motive)? What’s an example?
Motive may speak to whether someone acted at all, whether they acted with the requisite mental state or both!
Motive: “Aptly described as inducement or state of feeling that impels and temps the mind to indulge in a criminal act… perhaps best viewed as a circumstantial fact that usually need not be shown to prove guilt but is often relevant as a basis to infer both intent and act”
Ex: D was in serious debt, this evidence provides motive for a bank robbery
+ We’re not saying she may be more or less likely to commit robbery via propensity inference (D is not the type of person who’d commit such a crime) but it’s relevent because it tips the scales for reason to commit the crime.
+ BUT there can still be objections to character propensity inference
Hypo: Defendant’s attorney alleges that the victim in a homicide case “started” the incident at issue for which D is on trial. The prosecution moves to offer evidence that the victim is generally peaceful. The defense objections. How should the court rule?
Overruled. Per 404(a)(2)(C), prosecution may offer evidence of homicide victim’s (now dead) trait of peacefulness to rebut evidence that the victim was the first aggressor.
What does Rule 406 say?
Rule 406: Habit, Routine Practice
Evidence of a person’s habit or an organization’s routine practice may be admitted to prove that on a particular occasion the person or organization acted in accordance with the habit or routine practice.
The court may admit this evidence regardless of whether it is corroborated or whether there was an eye witness.
What does Rule 404(a)(3) say?
R.404(a)(3) Character Evidence, Other Crimes, Wrongs, or Acts
(a) Character Evidence
(3) Exceptions for a Witness.
Evidence of a witness’s character may be admitted under Rules 607, 608, and 609