36. Is the witness's testimony admissible?

Federal Rule of Evidence (FRE) 401 defines relevant evidence as evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of a case more or less probable than it would be without the evidence. 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 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 by 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. Most courts, and the FRE, allow three types of evidence of character when character is 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. A criminal defendant may introduce evidence of his own character of a pertinent trait. However, under FRE 405(a), the method by which a defendant may introduce such evidence is limited to reputation or opinion evidence only. Specific instances of conduct may not be used by the witness to prove the pertinent trait at issue. Under FRE 405(b), specific instances of conduct may be used when character is an essential element of the crime. However, this is rare and does not apply to the case at hand. In this case, the witness's testimony is not admissible because it is not in the form of reputation or opinion evidence.

A is incorrect. This answer reaches the correct answer with the wrong reasoning. Relevant evidence has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence. In this case, the evidence is relevant because it is probative of the defendant's character for honesty, and he is charged with theft. However, it is still inadmissible because it is an improper method.

C is incorrect. Although it is true that a criminal defendant may prove his good character as a basis for inferring conduct, such as his tendency toward honesty, he is still limited by FRE 405(a), which controls the method through which character evidence may be presented.

D is incorrect. A criminal defendant may open the door to his own character. He does not need to wait for the prosecution to place his character at issue. In this case, the testimony is not admissible because it is a specific instance of conduct, an unacceptable form.