ROCKVIEW UNIVERSITY

Proficiency and excellence

Name : PSALM KANYEMU

Student Id : 202202069
Program : BACHELOR OF LAWS
Course : LLB 213
Lecturer : MR MANENGU
Mode of study : FULL TIME
Intake : JANUARY 2022
Term : TWO
Assignment : TWO
Year : 2023
Due date : 2OTH JUNE 2023

Question : Discuss the admissibility of

character evidence in relation to civil and criminal matters
This piece of academic writing is aiming at explaining character evidence in relation to civil
and criminal matters. Character evidence is a type of evidence that shows the character or
disposition of a person to prove that they acted in a certain way. Character evidence can be
used to support or challenge the credibility of a witness or a party in a triale can include
testimony, documents, criminal convictions, or reputation in the community.

To begin with, in the majority of U.S. jurisdictions, character evidence is inadmissible in civil
suits when being used as circumstantial evidence to prove that a person acted in conformity
with their character; it is considered to be an unfair basis from which to attempt to prove that
an individual behaved in a particular way on a particular occasion. Another way of looking at
this is that character evidence is only admissible in a majority of jurisdictions in a civil trial if
character is actually a substantive issue in the case (negligent hiring; negligent entrustment,
child custody cases, loss of consortium cases), or to impeach a witness.

The accused for the purpose of proving his bad disposition, and that he is probably guilty of
the crime charged. The accused may adduce evidence in chief of his good character for the
purpose of proving is good disposition and hence that he is probably innocent; it then
becomes possible for the prosecution to rebut the evidence of his good character with
evidence of bad character.

In R v Rowton1 ; the defendant was charged with indecently assaulting a boy. He called
several witnesses to testify of his good character. In rebuttal, the prosecution called a witness
who was asked what the defendant’s general character of decency was. The witness stated
that D’s character was that of a man capable of the grossest indecency and the most flagrant
immorality.

Cockburn CJ said, “When evidence of good character has been given in favour of a prisoner,
evidence of his general bad character can be called in reply. It is sad that evidence of good
character raises only a collateral issue; but I think that, if the prisoner thinks proper to raise
that issue as one of the elements for consideration, nothing could be more unjust than that he
should have the advantage of a character, which may be the reverse of that which he really
deserves. Evidence of antecedent bad conduct would form equally good ground for inferring
the prisoner’s guilt, yet it is clear evidence of that kind is inadmissible”

1
(1865) C C R
A minority of U.S. jurisdictions, however, permit defendants in assault and battery and
fraudulent misconduct civil cases to introduce character evidence as circumstantial evidence
to prove that a person acted in conformity with their character. When a person's character is
an essential element in the case, evidence of his character is always admissible because it is
in issue. On the other hand, evidence of one's character which is offered only as tending to
prove the probability that he acted in a manner consistent with that character on a particular
occasion is generally inadmissible.

Wrabek v. Suchomel,2: "The complaint alleged that, in addition to inflicting injuries upon his
person by an assault, defendants intended to injure, and by the publicity of the assault did
injure, plaintiff's standing and reputation as a citizen in the community where he lived. The
general denial in the answers put plaintiff's reputation as a citizen in issue, and entitled
defendants to show, in mitigation of damages, that it was bad.

Civil actions for assault and battery seem often to be treated as in a class by themselves.
When the issue is merely whether the defendant committed the act charged, then the courts
would presumably admit or exclude defendant's evidence of good reputation according to
their alignment with the majority or minority view on the general question, as discussed
above. But when the defendant pleads self-defence, he may show the plaintiff's reputation for
turbulence if he proves it was known to him, on the issue of reasonable apprehension.
Similarly, when on a plea of self-defence or otherwise there is an issue as to who committed
the first act of aggression, most courts (regardless of their alignment on the general question)
seem to admit evidence of the good or bad reputation of both plaintiff and defendant for
peacefulness as shedding light on their probable acts. This cannot be justified, as is
sometimes attempted, on the ground that character is here "in issue"-the issue is clearly one
of conduct-but probably there is in these cases a special need even beyond that in most cases
of charges of crime in civil actions, for knowing the dispositions of the parties.

In the case of Pino v Koelber 3, the evidence presented at trial demonstrated that, Louis Pino
was driving his automobile on Palm Tree Boulevard in Cape Coral. After following Pino for

2
145 Minn. 468, 177 N.W. 764 (1920)
3
3d DCA, 1977
a short distance, Officer Koelber of the Cape Coral police suspected him of driving under the
influence of alcohol and ordered him to stop

Appellants contend that the court erred in having admitted over their objection evidence of
Koelber's reputation for peace and quiet and lack of violence. They also argue that the court
should have sustained their objection to testimony concerning two separate events, one before
and one after the incident in question, offered by appellees to prove Pino's propensity to react
violently when confronted by persons in authority. Since both of these issues involve
character evidence, it would be helpful to first consider the general rules pertaining to the
admissibility of such evidence.

Pino and Koelber were unknown to each other prior to this incident. Therefore, even if this
were a criminal case in which Koelber was charged with having attacked Pino, evidence of
specific acts of violence on the part of Pino would not have been admissible. Since the
tendency to admit character evidence in civil cases is generally more restrictive, we are
convinced that the court should not have permitted evidence of Pino's specific acts of
violence4.

Because this case was going to be retried, the court addressed the question of whether
Koelber would be permitted to introduce evidence of Pino's character through witnesses who
would testify to his reputation for violence5. On this point, we are able to follow our
predilection to treat a civil case for assault and battery in the same manner as a criminal case.
The court believed that the broad statement in Pandula v. Fonseca6 quoted above can be
limited because in that case self-defence had not been raised so there was no issue of who
was the first aggressor. Therefore, evidence of Pino's reputation for violence would be
admissible as tending to show him to be the first aggressor. The judgement was reversed and
the court ordered a retrial.

In the United States, character evidence is inadmissible in a criminal trial if first offered by
the prosecution as circumstantial evidence to show that a defendant is likely to have
committed the crime with which they are charged the prosecution may not, in other words,
initiate character evidence that shows defendant's propensity to commit a crime. However the
prosecution may introduce character evidence for certain limited purposes after the defendant
4
3d DCA, 1977
5
ibid
6
SCJ 145 fla. 1940
does so after the defendant has "opened the door" through the permissible methods and
purposes explained below in "Character evidence offered by the defendant," to rebut what
defendant tried showing through character evidence, and to "offer evidence of the defendant's
same trait.

Character evidence offered by a defendant is admissible in a criminal trial if offered by a

defendant as circumstantial evidence through reputation or opinion evidence to show their
own character, as long as the character evidence the defendant seeks to introduce is relevant
to the crime with which the defendant is charged. For example, if a defendant is charged with
a crime involving dishonesty, the defendant may introduce evidence tending to show the
defendant's honest character. If the defendant is charged with a violent crime, the defendant
may introduce evidence tending to show the defendant's peaceful character.

Character evidence is also admissible in a criminal trial if offered by a defendant as

circumstantial evidence through reputation or opinion evidence to show an alleged victim's
"pertinent" character trait for example, to support the defendant's claim of self-defense to a
charge of homicide7.

After a criminal defendant introduces evidence of the victim's character, the prosecution may
then introduce its own character evidence to rebut the defendant's character evidence by
showing its side's impression of the victim's character, or to attack the character of the
defendant through evidence that shows that defendant had the same character trait they
accused the victim of having8.

To sum up with, the admissibility of character evidence to allow the defendant to prove the
character trait of a victim is limited, however, if the lawsuit is for rape or assault with the
intent to commit rape. If the reputation or opinion evidence is being offered by the defendant
to show the rape victim's past sexual conduct, character evidence is inadmissible. In such
sexual misconduct cases, a defendant may offer "evidence of specific instances of a victim’s
sexual behavior" only to show that someone other than the defendant was the source of
semen, injury, or other physical evidence, or to show that the victim had consented to sexual
behavior with the defendant.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
7
3d DCA 1977
8
IBID
Murdoch’s Dictionary of Irish Law 4th ed., Henry Murdoch, Dublin, Tottel, 2004.

The Law Reform Commission, (LRC 35-1991) Report on the Confiscation of the Proceeds of
Crime, First Published January 1991.

Right to a Fair Trial in Criminal Matters Under Article 6 E.C.H.R. Paul Mahoney, 2004.

The Right to a Fair Trial in Civil Cases, Christos Rozakis, 2004.

Evidence, Declan McGrath, Thomson Round Hall, Dublin, 2006.

European Convention on Human Rights Act, 2003.

CASES REFFERED TO

R v Rowton 65) C C R

Pandula v Fonseca SCJ 145 fla. 1940

Pino v koelber 3d DCA, 1977

Wrabek v. Suchomel 145 Minn. 468, 177 N.W. 764 (1920)