In our last blog, we saw some basic definitions of relevance. Relevant evidence is evidence that tends to prove or disprove a material fact in the case.
For this problem, we revisit the relevance of “character” evidence. In evidence law, “character” is essentially the makeup of a individual’s personality traits, usually with a focus on one. Examples of character traits include honesty, dishonesty, generousness, friendliness, carelessness, calmness, anger, and selfishness. The law generally limits the use of this type of evidence to support an inference that a person ‘acted in conformity’ with that character. This is referred to as the “propensity inference.” But there are circumstances in which character evidence may be introduced. We will learn when and how it may be introduced. We already learned one way: impeaching a witness’ credibility on the issue of truthfulness.
Prosecution of D for the murder of V in V’s home. D claims he was camping in a neighboring state when the crime took place. To prove that D was in V’s home on the night in question, the prosecution seeks to offer into evidence that D was V’s part-time, health-care aid as part of a parole work-release program.
D objects to the prosecution’s evidence of D’s work-release evidence. Ruling?
Objection overruled, in part. The trial court would weigh the relevance of the work-release evidence against its prejudice caused to D under a FRE § 403 balancing test. Relevant evidence may still be excluded if its probative value is “substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.”
Here, the work-release evidence is debatable. The prosecution will argue that the work-release evidence is relevant to show a connection to V’s home and thus D’s “opportunity” (a permitted use under FRE § 404(b)) to commit the crime. The prosecution would also argue that the work-release part is relevant to rebut D’s alibi that he would travel to another state, likely prohibited under his parole. The defense will argue that the parole work-release part will be prejudicially construed against him. The jury may use the prior-crime evidence to infer D’s propensity to commit the crime at issue, a disallowed type of propensity inference. Furthermore, D will argue that the jury would punish him for his prior crime in the current case.
The court would likely admit evidence that D was V’s home health-care aid, but would exclude its connection to parole.
Here is a short video about the distinction between character evidence under a relevance analysis versus witness impeachment.