Evidence Question Forum

[3|ink]

I'm trying to understand the limitations, if any, that Rule 405(a) imposes on Rules 413, 414 and 415.

Whenever character evidence is admissible, 405(a) says it must be in the form of opinion or character testimony. But 413, 414 and 415 allow for proof in the form of prior offenses. Does 405(a) limit the kind of evidence that can be introduced under Rules 413-415 to opinion or reputation? That is, the only way to use these rules is to have a witness come in and say in the witness' opinion the defendant has a history of sexual assault (or a reputation for same)? I'm guess not because that would be absurd.

[Tanicius]

I'm trying to understand the limitations, if any, that Rule 405(a) imposes on Rules 413, 414 and 415.

Whenever character evidence is admissible, 405(a) says it must be in the form of opinion or character testimony. But 413, 414 and 415 allow for proof in the form of prior offenses. Does 405(a) limit the kind of evidence that can be introduced under Rules 413-415 to opinion or reputation? That is, the only way to use these rules is to have a witness come in and say in the witness' opinion the defendant has a history of sexual assault (or a reputation for same)? I'm guess not because that would be absurd.

Don't forget 405(b), which allows for evidence of specific instances of conduct (such as a RAP sheet), if they go to an essential element of a charge, claim or defense. This would include 413 evidence of similarly related sexual crimes in a defendant's past.

Also remember that 608 and 609 come along later and provide for very specific instances where you may impeach a witness's credibility with specifics.

[3|ink]

I'm trying to understand the limitations, if any, that Rule 405(a) imposes on Rules 413, 414 and 415.

Whenever character evidence is admissible, 405(a) says it must be in the form of opinion or character testimony. But 413, 414 and 415 allow for proof in the form of prior offenses. Does 405(a) limit the kind of evidence that can be introduced under Rules 413-415 to opinion or reputation? That is, the only way to use these rules is to have a witness come in and say in the witness' opinion the defendant has a history of sexual assault (or a reputation for same)? I'm guess not because that would be absurd.

Don't forget 405(b), which allows for evidence of specific instances of conduct (such as a RAP sheet), if they go to an essential element of a charge, claim or defense. This would include 413 evidence of similarly related sexual crimes in a defendant's past.

Also remember that 608 and 609 come along later and provide for very specific instances where you may impeach a witness's credibility with specifics.

Except that's for when the existence of the character trait - and not the conduct in accordance with the trait - is the thing to be proved. In other words, 405(b) evidence is not propensity evidence. 413-415 evidence is propensity evidence that is exempted from the general bar against propensity evidence.

There's a chart in my book that shows 405(b) is in this distinct category from 413-415. The distinction being that the latter is permissible propensity evidence.

See also pg. 2 of Kalvan's charts. As great as his chart is, it doesn't answer my question.

[2807]

I'm trying to understand the limitations, if any, that Rule 405(a) imposes on Rules 413, 414 and 415.

Whenever character evidence is admissible, 405(a) says it must be in the form of opinion or character testimony. But 413, 414 and 415 allow for proof in the form of prior offenses. Does 405(a) limit the kind of evidence that can be introduced under Rules 413-415 to opinion or reputation? That is, the only way to use these rules is to have a witness come in and say in the witness' opinion the defendant has a history of sexual assault (or a reputation for same)? I'm guess not because that would be absurd.

Don't overthink it.

405(a) is for evidence of "character or trait of character"

413-415 are evidence of "sexual assaults"... and even merely accusations.

405(a) does not control 413-415.

Period.

[A. Nony Mouse]

^ exactly. Evidence of prior sexual assaults isn't character evidence, it's prior bad acts (or the like). Character evidence is that you're peaceful or aggressive, basically. Or maybe truthful/not truthful. Raping someone isn't a character trait (at least, not legally).

Edit: propensity evidence and character evidence aren't the same thing, I don't think.

[Tanicius]

^ exactly. Evidence of prior sexual assaults isn't character evidence, it's prior bad acts (or the like). Character evidence is that you're peaceful or aggressive, basically. Or maybe truthful/not truthful. Raping someone isn't a character trait (at least, not legally).

Edit: propensity evidence and character evidence aren't the same thing, I don't think.

Propensity evidence is typically not allowed to prove character. That's the sticking point. In a robbery trial, you can't introduce evidence that the defendant also has a conviction for rape (unless he testifies, in which case it could go to truthfulness). The objection wouldn't be prejudice, but improper character evidence under 404.

[3|ink]

Thanks guys. My professor got back to me (I didn't expect him to because this was after the question deadline). He says 413-415 are exceptions to the bar on propensity evidence and 405(a) doesn't govern.

[nygrrrl]

^ exactly. Evidence of prior sexual assaults isn't character evidence, it's prior bad acts (or the like). Character evidence is that you're peaceful or aggressive, basically. Or maybe truthful/not truthful. Raping someone isn't a character trait (at least, not legally).

Edit: propensity evidence and character evidence aren't the same thing, I don't think.

Propensity evidence is typically not allowed to prove character. That's the sticking point. In a robbery trial, you can't introduce evidence that the defendant also has a conviction for rape (unless he testifies, in which case it could go to truthfulness). The objection wouldn't be prejudice, but improper character evidence under 404.

I was almost afraid to open this thread as I've just barely started studying for evidence. Thankfully, this all made total sense to me. Phew. (*runs back to the library)

[crit_racer]

i didn't even know 413-415 existed until I read this thread sooooo thanks for reminding me i should look at that before monday

[3|ink]

I think it is classic propensity evidence because the whole point is "he did it in the past and he was acting in conformity for the crime charged herein."