Character Evidence: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
|||
(3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
=Background= | =Background= | ||
Character evidence is a fertile area for both prosecutors and criminal defense attorneys. Character evidence is sometimes also called "propensity evidence." The danger of character evidence is well known as factfinders often overvalue character evidence during their deliberations. As a result, in the United States, the admissibility of character evidence is subject to a complex web of common law and statutory rules intended to decrease the prejudicial impact of this kind of evidence. | Character evidence is a fertile area for both prosecutors and criminal defense attorneys. Character evidence is sometimes also called "propensity evidence." The danger of character evidence is well known as factfinders often overvalue character evidence during their deliberations. As a result, in the United States, the admissibility of character evidence is subject to a complex web of common law and statutory rules intended to decrease the prejudicial impact of this kind of evidence. | ||
The danger of character evidence is that the factfinder will convict the defendant because they are a "bad person" or that they have committed similar crimes in the past rather than focusing on the prosecution's burden to prove the case against the defendant. | |||
Character evidence takes several forms. | Character evidence takes several forms. | ||
Line 8: | Line 10: | ||
* Opinion Evidence | * Opinion Evidence | ||
A criminal defense lawyer should always remember that evidence of bad acts are only relevant if they actually occurred.<ref>Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681 (1988)</ref> | |||
A criminal defense lawyer should always remember that evidence of bad acts are only relevant if they actually occurred. | |||
=Country Specific Applications= | =Country Specific Applications= | ||
Line 20: | Line 17: | ||
Under Federal Rule of Evidence 404 "Evidence of a person's character or a trait of character is not admissible for the purpose of proving action in conformity therewith on a particular occasion."<ref>Federal Rule of Evidence 404</ref> Such evidence may be offered for several other reasons:to prove motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, identity, absence of mistake or accident. | Under Federal Rule of Evidence 404 "Evidence of a person's character or a trait of character is not admissible for the purpose of proving action in conformity therewith on a particular occasion."<ref>Federal Rule of Evidence 404</ref> Such evidence may be offered for several other reasons:to prove motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, identity, absence of mistake or accident. | ||
= | ===The Exceptions=== | ||
==The Exceptions== | |||
Although character evidence and similar crimes evidence is generally inadmissible, a number of exceptions have been recognized over the years. These were later codified in section B of rule 404. | Although character evidence and similar crimes evidence is generally inadmissible, a number of exceptions have been recognized over the years. These were later codified in section B of rule 404. | ||
Evidence offered under one of these exceptions must still be analyzed to determine whether the probative value outweights the prejudicial effect of the evidence. [[ Federal Rules of Evidence - Rule 403. Exclusion of Relevant Evidence on Grounds of Prejudice, Confusion, or Waste of Time | Rule 403]]. Because a genuine issue can usually not be identified until after the defense presented its case, 404(b) evidence is typically offered in rebuttal. | Evidence offered under one of these exceptions must still be analyzed to determine whether the probative value outweights the prejudicial effect of the evidence. [[ Federal Rules of Evidence - Rule 403. Exclusion of Relevant Evidence on Grounds of Prejudice, Confusion, or Waste of Time | Rule 403]]. Because a genuine issue can usually not be identified until after the defense presented its case, 404(b) evidence is typically offered in rebuttal. | ||
Evidence of bad acts are only relevant if they actually occurred. In Huddelsteon v. United States, the United States Supreme Court held that in order for character evidence to be admissible at trial, a judge must make a preliminary determination that there is | Evidence of bad acts are only relevant if they actually occurred. In Huddelsteon v. United States, the United States Supreme Court held that in order for character evidence to be admissible at trial, a judge must make a preliminary determination that there is | ||
Line 42: | Line 28: | ||
# that act occurred<ref>Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681 (1988)</ref> | # that act occurred<ref>Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681 (1988)</ref> | ||
== Character Evidence Flow Chart for US Federal Courts == | === Character Evidence Flow Chart for US Federal Courts === | ||
[[File:characterevidenceflowchart.jpg]] | [[File:characterevidenceflowchart.jpg]] | ||
Latest revision as of 00:50, 11 December 2010
Background
Character evidence is a fertile area for both prosecutors and criminal defense attorneys. Character evidence is sometimes also called "propensity evidence." The danger of character evidence is well known as factfinders often overvalue character evidence during their deliberations. As a result, in the United States, the admissibility of character evidence is subject to a complex web of common law and statutory rules intended to decrease the prejudicial impact of this kind of evidence.
The danger of character evidence is that the factfinder will convict the defendant because they are a "bad person" or that they have committed similar crimes in the past rather than focusing on the prosecution's burden to prove the case against the defendant.
Character evidence takes several forms.
- Prior Bad Acts
- Prior Criminal Convictions
- Reputation Evidence
- Opinion Evidence
A criminal defense lawyer should always remember that evidence of bad acts are only relevant if they actually occurred.[1]
Country Specific Applications
United States
Under Federal Rule of Evidence 404 "Evidence of a person's character or a trait of character is not admissible for the purpose of proving action in conformity therewith on a particular occasion."[2] Such evidence may be offered for several other reasons:to prove motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, identity, absence of mistake or accident.
The Exceptions
Although character evidence and similar crimes evidence is generally inadmissible, a number of exceptions have been recognized over the years. These were later codified in section B of rule 404.
Evidence offered under one of these exceptions must still be analyzed to determine whether the probative value outweights the prejudicial effect of the evidence. Rule 403. Because a genuine issue can usually not be identified until after the defense presented its case, 404(b) evidence is typically offered in rebuttal.
Evidence of bad acts are only relevant if they actually occurred. In Huddelsteon v. United States, the United States Supreme Court held that in order for character evidence to be admissible at trial, a judge must make a preliminary determination that there is
- Sufficient admissible evidence
- for a reasonable jury
- to conclude by a preponderance (rather than beyond a reasonable doubt or clear and convincing standards)
- that act occurred[3]