Character Evidence and Witnesses under Evidence Law
Character Evidence and Witnesses under Evidence Law
Overview
Character evidence refers to testimony or documents introduced to show that a person acted in a particular way on a specific occasion based on their character or disposition. It is often used to infer how a person might have behaved.
In legal proceedings, the admissibility of character evidence is carefully regulated because it can be highly prejudicial and may distract the fact-finder from the actual facts of the case.
General Principles of Character Evidence
1. Character Evidence to Prove Conduct
Not generally admissible to prove conduct on a specific occasion.
Example: You cannot normally introduce evidence that a defendant has a “bad character” to show they likely committed the crime.
2. Exceptions
Criminal cases: The defendant may introduce evidence of their own good character to show innocence.
Prosecution: Once the defendant "opens the door" by introducing character evidence, the prosecution may rebut with evidence of bad character.
Character of Victim: Evidence may be admissible to show the victim’s character when it is relevant, especially in self-defense claims.
Witness Character: Character evidence can be used to impeach or support a witness’s credibility.
Character Evidence and Witnesses: Key Rules
Rule on Proving Character by Reputation or Opinion
Generally, character evidence is shown through reputation (what the community says about the person) or opinion (personal opinion of the witness about the person’s character).
Specific acts are generally not allowed to prove character except in some situations (e.g., witness impeachment).
Character Evidence to Impeach or Support Witness Credibility
Impeachment: If a witness is accused of being untruthful, character evidence about the witness’s truthfulness or untruthfulness can be introduced.
Rehabilitation: After impeachment, character evidence may be introduced to rehabilitate the witness.
Important Case Law
1. Michelson v. United States, 335 U.S. 469 (1948)
Facts: Michelson was on trial, and the defense sought to introduce character evidence to show he was truthful.
Ruling: The Supreme Court held that character evidence relating to truthfulness or untruthfulness may be admissible to impeach or support a witness.
Significance: Established that character evidence can be used to attack or bolster a witness’s credibility, but only regarding truthfulness.
2. Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172 (1997)
Facts: The prosecution wanted to introduce prior conviction evidence to show defendant’s character for committing a crime.
Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled that when the probative value of evidence is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, courts may exclude it.
Significance: Reinforced the idea that character evidence, especially prior crimes, can be excluded if it is too prejudicial.
3. People v. Zackowitz, 254 N.Y. 192 (1930)
Facts: Evidence of prior bad acts was introduced to show the defendant’s general bad character.
Ruling: The court held that character evidence is generally inadmissible to prove conduct.
Significance: A foundational case emphasizing the limited use of character evidence in proving the defendant’s conduct.
Character Evidence in Criminal vs. Civil Cases
Criminal cases: More leeway is given for defendants to introduce character evidence to show innocence or to rebut prosecution evidence.
Civil cases: Character evidence is usually inadmissible to prove conduct, except where character is directly at issue (e.g., defamation or negligent hiring).
Summary of Rules on Character Evidence and Witnesses
| Use of Character Evidence | Admissible? | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| To prove conduct (defendant’s guilt or innocence) | Generally NO | Except defendant can introduce evidence of good character; prosecution may rebut. |
| To impeach a witness’s credibility | YES | Limited to truthfulness or untruthfulness. |
| To show victim’s character (e.g., in self-defense) | Sometimes YES | Depends on relevance to issue. |
| To prove character in civil cases | Generally NO | Unless character is directly at issue. |
| Specific bad acts to prove character | Generally NO | Except for witness impeachment or other exceptions. |
RELATED Blog
0 comments