Under the rules for character evidence, when is testimony about a person's character admissible?

Under the rules for character evidence, when is testimony about a person's character admissible?

• A. Only if the accused has introduced evidence of his good character.
• B. In every case, without restriction.
• C. Never admissible.
• D. Only when the witness is asked about the defendant's character on cross-examination.

Answer: (A)

Character evidence isn’t admissible to prove how someone acted on a particular occasion. There is a narrow exception: the defendant must first put his own good character at issue by introducing evidence of that good character. Once the defense does that, the opposing side may respond with evidence of the defendant’s bad character to rebut it. That’s why the best answer is that testimony about a person’s character is admissible only if the accused has introduced evidence of his good character—because the rule limits character evidence to a situation where the defense has already opened the door. In other contexts, such testimony isn’t allowed, and it isn’t restricted to only cross-examination; once the door is opened by the defense, the door can be used in rebuttal.

Character evidence isn’t admissible to prove how someone acted on a particular occasion. There is a narrow exception: the defendant must first put his own good character at issue by introducing evidence of that good character. Once the defense does that, the opposing side may respond with evidence of the defendant’s bad character to rebut it. That’s why the best answer is that testimony about a person’s character is admissible only if the accused has introduced evidence of his good character—because the rule limits character evidence to a situation where the defense has already opened the door. In other contexts, such testimony isn’t allowed, and it isn’t restricted to only cross-examination; once the door is opened by the defense, the door can be used in rebuttal.