31. Should the testimony be admitted?

The 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 he is more likely to have committed the crime of which he is accused. However, the accused may introduce evidence of his good character to show his innocence of the alleged crime. A defendant puts his character in issue by calling a qualified witness to testify to the defendant's good reputation (or that he has heard nothing bad) for the trait involved in the case. Under Federal Rule of Evidence (FRE) 405, the witness may also give his personal opinion concerning that trait of the defendant. However, the witness may not testify to specific acts of conduct of the defendant to prove the trait at issue.

When the defendant's character is the ultimate issue in the case, character evidence must be admitted. Fed. R. Evid. 405. The FRE allows three types of evidence of character when character is directly at issue: (i) specific acts to demonstrate character; (ii) a witness's opinion of that character; and (iii) evidence as to the subject's reputation for the character trait at issue.

B is correct. Under FRE 404(a)(2), when a criminal defendant seeks to prove his good character, FRE 405(a) allows proof only by reputation evidence or opinion evidence, not by specific instances of conduct. When character is the ultimate issue in the case, specific acts are admissible. Here, character is not the ultimate issue. Nevertheless, the defendant sought to elicit testimony from his former supervisor that on several occasions the corporation had, without incident, entrusted him with large sums of money. Thus, these specific instances of conduct are not admissible.

A is incorrect. This answer reaches the correct answer with the wrong reasoning. The testimony does not relate to a collateral matter. The problem with the testimony is that it relates to specific instances of conduct, not reputation or opinion evidence, which are the only permissible forms of testimony when a criminal defendant is seeking to establish his good character.

C is incorrect. Honesty is a pertinent trait of character in a case such as this where a defendant is charged with fraud. However, when an accused seeks to prove his good character under FRE 404(a)(2), FRE 405(a) allows proof only by reputation evidence or opinion evidence, not specific instances of conduct.

D is incorrect. The evidence is relevant because an accused may present evidence of a pertinent trait of character, and honesty is a pertinent trait in a case where a defendant is charged with fraud. However, when an accused seeks to prove his good character, proof may only be introduced by reputation or opinion evidence, not specific instances of conduct, as explained above.