My bar review course posed this question, and I'm not sure I agree with them. Please advise?
In which of the following situations may the prosecution introduce evidence of the defendant’s bad character to establish she probably committed the crime charged?
A: Where character is directly in issue in the case.
B: Where the defendant first introduces evidence of her good character.
C: Where the defendant’s bad character shows that she is more likely to have committed the crime of which she is accused.
D: Where the defendant chooses to testify.
Answer:
My thoughts:
Character Evidence Bar Q: Forum
Forum rules
Anonymous Posting
Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are sharing sensitive information about bar exam prep. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.
Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned."
Anonymous Posting
Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are sharing sensitive information about bar exam prep. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.
Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned."
-
- Posts: 480
- Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 8:05 pm
Re: Character Evidence Bar Q:
It's been a few years since the bar so take this with a grain of salt. Second, the question is not poorly worded. Responding to your questions in reverse order, the FRE doesn't limit character exceptions to civil cases - it limits the introduction of character evidence in criminal cases though. Second, you obviously understand that this is a crim case since its the prosecution introducing evidence. All you really have to recall is that one must open the door before the other door can be opened. You can surmise what the doors are when you read the correct response.estefanchanning wrote:My bar review course posed this question, and I'm not sure I agree with them. Please advise?
In which of the following situations may the prosecution introduce evidence of the defendant’s bad character to establish she probably committed the crime charged?
A: Where character is directly in issue in the case.
B: Where the defendant first introduces evidence of her good character.
C: Where the defendant’s bad character shows that she is more likely to have committed the crime of which she is accused.
D: Where the defendant chooses to testify.
Answer: My thoughts:
-
- Posts: 352
- Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2016 12:22 pm
Re: Character Evidence Bar Q:
Thank you for the response. I have another question. Their explanation says "Character evidence is admissible in civil cases where character is directly in issue (i.e., defamation, negligent hiring). This rule does not apply to criminal cases." Is this true? I was under the impression that character evidence is admissible in civil AND criminal cases where character is directly at issue, regardless if D opens the door. FRE 405 does not distinguish between civil or criminalLockBox wrote:It's been a few years since the bar so take this with a grain of salt. Second, the question is not poorly worded. Responding to your questions in reverse order, the FRE doesn't limit character exceptions to civil cases - it limits the introduction of character evidence in criminal cases though. Second, you obviously understand that this is a crim case since its the prosecution introducing evidence. All you really have to recall is that one must open the door before the other door can be opened. You can surmise what the doors are when you read the correct response.estefanchanning wrote:My bar review course posed this question, and I'm not sure I agree with them. Please advise?
In which of the following situations may the prosecution introduce evidence of the defendant’s bad character to establish she probably committed the crime charged?
A: Where character is directly in issue in the case.
B: Where the defendant first introduces evidence of her good character.
C: Where the defendant’s bad character shows that she is more likely to have committed the crime of which she is accused.
D: Where the defendant chooses to testify.
Answer: My thoughts:
- RCSOB657
- Posts: 3346
- Joined: Wed Jun 18, 2014 2:50 am
Re: Character Evidence Bar Q:
Character is at issue means charges like fraud, theft, etc
Generally, b is correct.
404 is your rule.
Generally, b is correct.
404 is your rule.
- RCSOB657
- Posts: 3346
- Joined: Wed Jun 18, 2014 2:50 am
Re: Character Evidence Bar Q:
And more importantly, look at the question It's saying introduce character evidence to prove he committed the crime.
That's quite clearly a 404b1 question.
That's quite clearly a 404b1 question.
-
- Posts: 4446
- Joined: Fri Feb 16, 2018 8:58 am
Re: Character Evidence Bar Q:
Yeah, rule 405 doesn't address when you can introduce evidence of character, just how you can do it (despite how it's worded). Rule 404 addresses when it's admissible.
(also character isn't actually at issue for fraud, theft, etc. any more than for any other offense. You don't get to say "this person committed fraud b/c he's a bad person" any more than you can say "this person committed assault b/c he's a bad person.")
(also character isn't actually at issue for fraud, theft, etc. any more than for any other offense. You don't get to say "this person committed fraud b/c he's a bad person" any more than you can say "this person committed assault b/c he's a bad person.")
Want to continue reading?
Register now to search topics and post comments!
Absolutely FREE!
Already a member? Login