This is known as impeachment evidence since it weighs on the credibility of the witness. Under C. Put in other words, under C. Put in other words, only after a witness has been attacked as having untruthful character may testimony be offered that the witness is, indeed, truthful. Further, while character evidence relating to truthfulness is generally limited to reputation and opinion testimony only, specific instances of conduct may be inquired upon on cross-examination within the discretion of the court.
More specifically, any witness can be cross-examined on specific acts of her own conduct that relates to untruthfulness, and truthfulness after her character has been attacked. Additionally, if a witness gives opinion or reputation testimony as to the truthfulness of another witness, the witness offering the testimony can be cross-examined on specific instances of conduct of the other witness to see if the testifying witness is aware of them.
See C. For example:. Are you aware of the time that witness found a wallet and returned it to its owner? Importantly, where specific instances of conduct are inquired upon, extrinsic evidence to prove that conduct is inadmissible. Lastly, in addition to character evidence that is generally governed by the Colorado Rules of Evidence, certain character evidence is governed by statute.
Under the statute, in civil cases a witness may be questioned about prior felony convictions that occurred within the last 5 years leading up to the time of testimony.
The rationale behind this is that felony convictions are severe enough that they inherently call into question the credibility of a witness. Accordingly, felony convictions within the last 5 years, no matter the nature of offense, are admissible against any witness as affecting his credibility.
Importantly, in contrast to general inquiries of specific conduct of truthfulness admissible under C. A provide reasonable notice of any such evidence that the prosecutor intends to offer at trial, so that the defendant has a fair opportunity to meet it;.
B articulate in the notice the permitted purpose for which the prosecutor intends to offer the evidence and the reasoning that supports the purpose; and.
C do so in writing before trial — or in any form during trial if the court, for good cause, excuses lack of pretrial notice.
Subdivision a. This subdivision deals with the basic question whether character evidence should be admitted. Once the admissibility of character evidence in some form is established under this rule, reference must then be made to Rule , which follows, in order to determine the appropriate method of proof.
If the character is that of a witness, see Rules and for methods of proof. Character questions arise in two fundamentally different ways. No problem of the general relevancy of character evidence is involved, and the present rule therefore has no provision on the subject. The only question relates to allowable methods of proof, as to which see Rule , immediately following.
This circumstantial use of character evidence raises questions of relevancy as well as questions of allowable methods of proof. This pattern is incorporated in the rule. While its basis lies more in history and experience than in logic as underlying justification can fairly be found in terms of the relative presence and absence of prejudice in the various situations. In any event, the criminal rule is so deeply imbedded in our jurisprudence as to assume almost constitutional proportions and to override doubts of the basic relevancy of the evidence.
The limitation to pertinent traits of character, rather than character generally, in paragraphs 1 and 2 is in accordance with the prevailing view. A similar provision in Rule , to which reference is made in paragraph 3 , limits character evidence respecting witnesses to the trait of truthfulness or untruthfulness. The argument is made that circumstantial use of character ought to be allowed in civil cases to the same extent as in criminal cases, i. Extrinsic Policies Affecting Admissibility , Cal.
Law Revision Comm'n, Rep. Uniform Rule 47 goes farther, in that it assumes that character evidence in general satisfies the conditions of relevancy, except as provided in Uniform Rule The difficulty with expanding the use of character evidence in civil cases is set forth by the California Law Revision Commission in its ultimate rejection of Uniform Rule 47, Id. It tends to distract the trier of fact from the main question of what actually happened on the particular occasion.
It subtly permits the trier of fact to reward the good man to punish the bad man because of their respective characters despite what the evidence in the case shows actually happened.
Much of the force of the position of those favoring greater use of character evidence in civil cases is dissipated by their support of Uniform Rule 48 which excludes the evidence in negligence cases, where it could be expected to achieve its maximum usefulness.
Holder , U. It is believed that those espousing change have not met the burden of persuasion. Subdivision b deals with a specialized but important application of the general rule excluding circumstantial use of character evidence.
Consistently with that rule, evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove character as a basis for suggesting the inference that conduct on a particular occasion was in conformity with it.
However, the evidence may be offered for another purpose, such as proof of motive, opportunity, and so on, which does not fall within the prohibition. In this situation the rule does not require that the evidence be excluded. No mechanical solution is offered. The determination must be made whether the danger of undue prejudice outweighs the probative value of the evidence in view of the availability of other means of proof and other factors appropriate for making decisions of this kind under Rule This rule provides that evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove character but may be admissible for other specified purposes such as proof of motive.
Rather, it is anticipated that with respect to permissible uses for such evidence, the trial judge may exclude it only on the basis of those considerations set forth in Rule , i. Rule b has emerged as one of the most cited Rules in the Rules of Evidence. And in many criminal cases evidence of an accused's extrinsic acts is viewed as an important asset in the prosecution's case against an accused.
Although there are a few reported decisions on use of such evidence by the defense, see, e. McClure , F. The amendment to Rule b adds a pretrial notice requirement in criminal cases and is intended to reduce surprise and promote early resolution on the issue of admissibility.
The notice requirement thus places Rule b in the mainstream with notice and disclosure provisions in other rules of evidence. See, e. The Rule expects that counsel for both the defense and the prosecution will submit the necessary request and information in a reasonable and timely fashion. Other than requiring pretrial notice, no specific time limits are stated in recognition that what constitutes a reasonable request or disclosure will depend largely on the circumstances of each case.
Compare Fla. Likewise, no specific form of notice is required. General bad character or propensity is presumptively inadmissible. Moral prejudice is where the cases are decided based on the "kind of person" the accused is perceived to be is rather than on what they have done.
Reasoning prejudice is where evidence of similar conduct creates "confusion" and "distracts" the trier of fact from the purpose of focusing on the charges. An accused may call witnesses who will testify to his good character as relevant to show the accused is credible or that the accused is unlikely to have committed the offence. The evidence of good character is limited to the accused's general reputation in the community with respect to relevant traits such as honesty, morality and humanity.
The crown may cross-examine the accused's character witness on the grounds of their belief and the particular facts from which they based their conclusion. Specific good acts of the accused are not admissible to show good character. Where the accused puts his character in issue, the judge must instruct the jury on the permissible use of this evidence as being relevant to: [7].
Where character evidence has been adduced by the accused, the Crown may only adduce bad character evidence of a general reputation of the accused in the community [1] b prior criminal acts, or c similar past bad acts.
Section also permits the Crown to adduce evidence of bad character of a prior criminal record to rebut the good character evidence:. Where, at a trial, the accused adduces evidence of his good character, the prosecutor may, in answer thereto, before a verdict is returned, adduce evidence of the previous conviction of the accused for any offences, including any previous conviction by reason of which a greater punishment may be imposed.
C, s. The Crown may adduce similar past bad acts to rebut good character evidence. An outstanding charge against any witness cannot be used as evidence of character due to the presumption of innocence.
He also cannot be cross-examined on outstanding charges. Bad character evidence is anything that would show the conduct of the accused, beyond what is in the charges, that would be "seen with disapproval by a reasonable person". The Crown is presumptively prohibited from adducing general evidence of extrinsic misconduct ie. The court is responsible to avoid letting in extrinsic misconduct. Discreditable evidence is consider inherently prejudicial for several reasons: [4]. Evidence that a person is poor or a "braggart" is not necessarily discreditable evidence.
The accused's association with the Hell's Angels and his demonstrative familiarity with the "intricacies of the drug world and the criminal justice system" amounted to inappropriate bad character evidence against an accused tried for drug trafficking was found inadmissible.
There are exception to this rule where, on a balance of probabilities, the probative value outweighs the prejudicial effect. Consideration of probative value against the prejudicial effect includes considering the "specific link" between the evidence and the issue at trial.
Probative value is measured on the basis of: [3]. Prejudice is measured on the basis of: [4]. Prejudices can sometimes be mitigated by the use of limiting instructions or the trier of fact.
0コメント