0615

The response should have the same three parts.

a) Jane’s character as a bad driver is not offered to prove "propensity"-- that Jane drove badly on this occasion.

b) Rather, it is being offered to prove that she was a bad driver to whom it was negligent to entrust a truck.

c) Rule 405(b) says that when character is an essential element of a cause of action, as in this case, it may be proved by evidence of specific acts.


Questions? E-mail tanford@indiana.edu and refer to 0615.

Look at Problem 6B. The defense offers his parish priest's opinion of his good character for peacefulness, and his knowledge of the defendant's good reputation for peacefulness. If the prosecutor objects that this is inadmissible character evidence, what argument should the defense make in response?

When you have decided, click here .