washington mock trial rules of evidence - YMCA of Greater Seattle

person was intoxicated when he was involved in an accident on a particular date. This ruleshould not be confused with the rules pertaining to impeachment.The 404(a)(1) exception permits an accused in a criminal case to offer evidence in hisdefense pertaining to his character if the character trait is relevant to his defense. Forexample, an accused may offer testimony concerning his good record for honesty at workwhere he handles large sums of money in a case where he is accused of theft. On theother hand, his record for honesty would not be relevant in a case where he was chargedwith assault or indecent exposure.If the defendant opens up the subject of his character, the prosecution will be permitted tocross-examine him on the subject and introduce independent evidence which rebuts thedefendant's testimony concerning his good character. For example, if a businessmandefendant testifies about his wealth in an effort to persuade the jury that he has no needto steal money from his clients, the prosecution will be permitted to inquire about thedefendant's income tax returns. However, just because a criminal defendant chooses totestify does not open up the issue of his or her character. The subject is opened up onlywhen the accused voluntarily puts his or her character at issue by claiming to be a personof exemplary behavior.The 404(a)(2) exception permits the accused to offer evidence of the victim’s violentcharacter in murder and assault cases in order to show that the victim was the firstaggressor and the accused acted in self defense.Rule 404(b) is based on the concept that the defendant is being tried for crimes alleged tohave been committed in the present, not crimes or wrongdoing committed in the past. It isintended to prevent the prosecution from arguing that since the defendant has committedoffenses in the past, he or she is more likely to have committed the offense with which heor she is currently charged, i.e., that the defendant is obviously a criminal or a “badperson.” The danger of unfair prejudice from the admission of such evidence far outweighsits relevance.However, this evidence may be admissible for some other purpose. For example, evidencethat the defendant and the deceased engaged in physical combat on several occasions inthe past could prove that the defendant was hostile toward the deceased and, therefore,had a motive to commit murder.Evidence which is admissible under this rule will often be ruled inadmissible under Rule 403because the danger of unfair prejudice far outweighs its probative value. When thedecision to admit or exclude evidence concerning prior wrongdoing is in doubt, judgesusually rule in favor of excluding the evidence.