14. The witness's testimony is

Use of character evidence to prove how a person probably acted raises the most difficult problems of relevance, especially in criminal cases. The general rule is that the prosecution cannot initiate evidence of the bad character of the defendant merely to show that she is more likely to have committed the crime of which she is accused. Thus, under FRE 404(b), the prosecution may not use the accused's bad character to imply criminal disposition. The prosecution may only introduce character evidence if the defendant puts her character at issue first, by having a character witness testify as to his opinion of the defendant or the defendant's reputation. A specific act of misconduct, offered to attack a witness's character for truthfulness, can be elicited only on cross-examination of the witness.

C is correct. Evidence of a person's character is not admissible for the purpose of proving action in conformity therewith on a particular occasion. Here, the witness's testimony is being offered as evidence of the defendant's bad character. Although there is an exception that allows the prosecution to use character evidence, this is only in rebuttal to character evidence introduced by the defendant. Because the defendant did not introduce any character evidence intended to prove that he is a nonviolent, peaceful person, the prosecution is not permitted to introduce evidence intended to prove the defendant's violent character. As such, the testimony is inadmissible.

A is incorrect. The testimony regarding the prior shooting and self-defense claim is evidence of the defendant's violent character, not his untruthful character. Even if the evidence were relevant to untruthfulness, however, specific instances of the conduct of a witness, for the purpose of attacking or supporting the witness's character for truthfulness, may not be proved by extrinsic evidence.

B is incorrect. The fact that the defendant raised a self-defense claim in a prior case, whether successfully or not, is inadmissible to prove the defendant did not act in self-defense in this case. This is because such evidence would only be intended to prove that the defendant is more likely to have committed the crime of which he is accused.

D is incorrect. This answer reaches the correct answer with the wrong reasoning. To be considered relevant, the state's proffered testimony need only be relevant to the elements of the crime charged, and any affirmative defenses raised by the defendant (i.e., self-defense in this case). However, the testimony is specifically excluded by the rules of evidence dealing with the character of the accused, as explained above.