Relevance Flashcards
Defendants right to offer pertinent character evidence of good character
A defendant is permitted to introduce evidence of his good character as being inconsistent with the type of crime charged. The defendant’s character evidence must be pertinent to that crime. Proof of good character offered by the defendant must be in the form of reputation testimony or opinion testimony. For example, if charged with embezzlement, the defendant may offer reputation testimony that he is an honest person, which is pertinent to the crime because it involves fraud and dishonesty
When can defendant introduce evidence of the victims character?
A criminal defendant may introduce reputation or opinion evidence of the alleged victim’s character when it is relevant to the defense asserted.
Character evidence in civil cases
In a civil case, evidence of a person’s character (or character trait) generally is inadmissible to prove that the person acted in accordance with that character (or character trait) on a particular occasion
Is character evidence admissible when character is at issue in a civil case?
Character evidence is admissible when character is an essential element of a claim or defense, rather than a means of proving a person’s conduct. Character is most commonly an essential element in defamation (character of the plaintiff), negligent hiring or negligent entrustment (character of the person hired or entrusted), and child-custody cases (character of the parent or guardian).
Specific Acts in a civil case
When character evidence is admissible as evidence in a civil case (i.e., evidence that is an essential element of a claim or defense), it may be proved by specific instances of a person’s conduct as well as either by testimony about the person’s reputation or by testimony in the form of an opinion.
Specific Acts in a criminal case
Generally, when character evidence is admissible as evidence in a criminal case (e.g., evidence of good character introduced by the defendant), specific instances of a person’s conduct are not admissible. Character must be proved by either reputation or opinion testimony
Specific Acts when its for Non-propensity use
When a defendant’s bad act is not used to show the defendant’s criminal propensity but for another purpose (e.g., motive, identity), such instance of conduct may be admissible for that purpose.
Specific Acts when character is an Essential element of the crime charged:
When character or a character trait is an essential element of the crime charged, the defendant may introduce relevant specific acts inconsistent with the crime.
Specific Acts when Cross-examination of character witness
When a character witness is cross-examined, the court may allow a party to inquire into specific acts committed by the person about whom the witness is testifying.
Character evidence about the plaintiffs conduct when it is also an element to a defense
In a civil case, evidence of a person’s character (or character trait) generally is inadmissible to prove that the person acted in accordance with that character (or character trait) on a particular occasion. Character evidence is admissible, however, when character is an essential element of a claim or defense, rather than a means of proving a person’s conduct. Character is most commonly an essential element in defamation cases (character of the plaintiff). When character evidence is admissible as evidence in a civil case, it may be proved by specific instances of a person’s conduct as well as either by testimony about the person’s reputation or by testimony in the form of an opinion
Can testimony be excluded if the witness is bias?
Bias is not a basis for excluding testimony by a witness. Rather, the counsel would impeach the witness during cross-examination
What is the courts role when relevance of evidence depends upon whether a fact exists?
When the relevance of evidence depends upon whether a fact exists, proof must be introduced sufficient to support a finding that the fact does exist. The court may admit the proposed evidence on the condition that the proof is introduced later. In making its determination that sufficient evidence has been introduced, the court must examine all of the evidence and decide whether the jury could reasonably find the conditional fact by a preponderance of the evidence.
When does the best evidence rule apply?
The best evidence rule applies only when the contents of the document are at issue or a witness is relying on the contents of the document when testifying. The contents of a document are at issue when the document is used as proof of the happening of an event, the document has a legal effect, or the witness is testifying based on facts learned from the writing as opposed to based on personal knowledge.
