Evidence+attack

CHARACTER 1. KSA 60-447; 404(a)→When character is admissible to prove conduct • Trait of Crim ∆ o ∆ may offer evidence of pertinent trait of character to suggest unliklihood that he committed crime (evidence showing non-violence for assault or honest for theft charge) o Π may not offer evidence of bad trait of ∆ unless ∆ first offers evidence of good charater--∆ testifying about merits is not an offer of good character  Testimony regarding birth, education, marital status, employment is NOT offer of good character  A ∆ usually offers good character evidence by calling opinion or reputation W—but ∆ himself can become good character W through opinion or improper reference w/out objection to specific instances beyond mere background • State v Bowers--∆ testified that he was active Muslim, went to temple 3x a week, worked for conversions and loved jazz—indicated traits of being cultured, devoutly religious, energetic, and generous  Under AMENDED 404(a)(1) if ∆ offers evidence of trait of character of V of crime then Π can offer evidence of the same trait of character of the ACCUSED—even though has not first offered evidence of the accused behavior •

Trait of Victim o ∆ may offer evidence of a pertinent trait of V to suggest that he was engaged in relevant conduct at time of offense—D charged w/ assault who claims self defense may want to show V had trait of violence o 21-3525 prohibit reference w/out ct approval, to V’s previous sexual conduct w/ any person—can be interpreted to prohibit proof in the form of opinion or rep as well as conduct o 412—prohibits in crim case, any evidence of the sexual disposition of V unless admission is Const req’d  In civil cases, 412 bars evidence of rep of V unless rep has been places in issue by V and bars other evidence of sexual predisposition unless w/stands 403 o Prosecution generally may not offer evidence of a good trait of V unless ∆ first offers bad trait unless to show V’s peaceful nature to rebut ∆ ’s claim of self-defense

•

Civil Case o KS—either party may offer evidence of pertinent traits of any person to show actions on particular occasion—no req’t that ∆ offer first

A person’s traits of care or skill or opposite ar not admissible to prove the person was or wasn’t negligent on the occasion subject to litigation o FRE—entirely bars character evidence to prove conduct in civ cases 