Character can be proved through evidence of reputation or opinion testimony when admissible. Reputation and opinion evidence are considered acceptable methods of proving character because they provide insight into how a person behaves generally. Evidence of past acts, however, is generally inadmissible unless an exception applies because it can unfairly prejudice the jury by portraying someone based on prior incidents, which is not the purpose of character evidence. Answers involving specific acts, prior convictions, or extraneous conduct are incorrect unless they are introduced under a valid exception such as proving motive, intent, or absence of mistake.
Ask Bash
Bash is our AI bot, trained to help you pass your exam. AI Generated Content may display inaccurate information, always double-check anything important.
What is reputation testimony and how is it used in court?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
What are the principles behind why specific past acts of a person are generally inadmissible as character evidence?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
Under what circumstances can prior convictions be admitted in court?