A paralegal is preparing for a civil trial where the plaintiff is seeking damages for injuries sustained in a slip-and-fall accident. The plaintiff's attorney wants to call a witness who will testify about the general reputation of the defendant's property management company for neglecting maintenance, specifically regarding slippery floors. The paralegal knows that character evidence is generally inadmissible to prove conduct. However, which of the following best describes when evidence of a person's character may be admissible?
- AWhen it is evidence of specific instances of conduct, regardless of relevance.
- BWhen offered to show the person's propensity to commit a crime or act negligently.
- CWhen the character trait is an essential element of a claim, defense, or charge.
- DWhen offered to prove a person's action in conformity therewith on a particular occasion.
Show answer & explanationAnswer & explanation
Correct answer: C. When the character trait is an essential element of a claim, defense, or charge.
Under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(a) and 405(b), character evidence is generally inadmissible to prove that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character or trait. However, an important exception is when a person's character or character trait is an essential element of a claim, defense, or charge. This is rare and typically occurs in cases like defamation, negligent entrustment, or child custody, where character itself, not just conduct, is directly at issue.
Why the other options are wrong
- A. Specific instances of conduct are generally inadmissible to prove character, unless character is an essential element and then only in certain ways.
- B. This is the general prohibition against using character evidence to show propensity to act in a certain way.
- D. This describes the *general rule* that character evidence is inadmissible for this purpose (propensity evidence).
Character as Essential Element
An exception to the general rule against character evidence, allowing its admission when a person's character or character trait is a direct and essential element of a claim, defense, or charge.
- Rare exception to FRE 404
- Character itself is directly at issue, not merely to prove conduct
- Examples: defamation, negligent entrustment, child custody
Memory trick: Character's usually out, unless it's the 'very core' of the case itself.