Also known as: Rules 404 · FRE 404 · Fed. R. Evid. 404 · Federal Rule of Evidence 404
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A rule of evidence that bars proof of a person's character or character trait to show action in conformity with that trait on a particular occasion. In criminal cases the rule permits a defendant to introduce evidence of a pertinent trait of the defendant or an alleged victim, after which the prosecution may offer rebuttal evidence on the same trait. The rule also governs admission of evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts when offered for a non-propensity purpose such as motive, intent, identity, or absence of mistake.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Roland Rhodes is prosecuted for knowingly selling stolen videotapes. The government offers testimony that Rhodes previously offered to sell new televisions at suspiciously low prices. The court admits the evidence after finding the jury could reasonably conclude Rhodes committed the prior act and that its probative value on knowledge is not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice.
Rachel Ramirez faces charges of unlawful firearm possession. The prosecution introduces evidence that she bought fifteen other handguns from the same shop in the preceding fifteen months. The court admits the evidence for the limited purpose of showing knowledge and intent after conducting Rule 403 balancing.
Roberto Reyes, charged as a felon in possession, offers to stipulate to his prior felony status. The government seeks to introduce the full record of the earlier conviction. The court requires acceptance of the stipulation because the additional details create unfair prejudice that substantially outweighs their marginal probative value on the status element.
Renata Russo is charged with unlawful possession of a short-barreled shotgun. The defense offers historical evidence concerning the type of weapon at issue. The court evaluates the evidence under the character and other-acts framework to determine whether it bears on the elements without inviting propensity reasoning.
Raymond Ramos is tried for transporting illegal weapons. The government offers evidence of earlier shipments of undeclared cargo. The court admits the evidence after determining it is relevant to knowledge and that the probative value is not substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice.
Rosalind Reed is prosecuted for a bank robbery. The government offers testimony describing an earlier robbery with similar distinctive features. The court admits the evidence after finding sufficient proof that Reed committed the prior act and that its probative value on identity is not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice.
The prosecutor may not initiate proof of the defendant's bad character. Once the defendant offers evidence of a pertinent trait, however, the prosecutor may rebut that trait with contrary character evidence under Rule 404(a)(2)(A).
Supporting sources
A defendant may offer evidence of a pertinent trait of the alleged victim. If the court admits that evidence, the prosecutor may offer rebuttal evidence on the same trait under Rule 404(a)(2)(B)(i).
…factor." Advisory Committee's Notes on Fed. Rule Evid. 403, 28 U. S. C. App., p. 860. The point gets a reprise in the Notes to Rule 404(b), dealing with admissibility when a given evidentiary item has the dual nature of legitimate evidence of an element and illegitimate evidence of character: "No mechanical solution is…
…Opinion of Judge Cowen This appeal presents the question whether evidence of a defendant's prior bad acts is admissible under
…681 (1988) - Judges: Chief Justice Rehnquist delivered the opinion of the Court. Opinion of Chief Justice Rehnquist Federal Rule of Evidence 404
…that had been purchased from the same pawn shop in November 2002. Gray objected to the introduction of this evidence
…to hurt anybody or anything) a defendant puts his whole character in issue; that would make mincemeat of the limitations in Rule 404
Supporting sources
The trial court need not find by a preponderance that the defendant committed the prior act. The evidence is admissible if the jury could reasonably find the act occurred and if its probative value on a non-propensity issue is not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice under Rule 403.
Supporting sources
Yes. The prohibition on using character evidence to prove conduct in conformity applies in civil cases, and the narrow criminal-case exceptions for defendants and victims do not extend to civil litigation.
Supporting sources
On direct examination, character is proved by reputation or opinion testimony. Specific instances may be inquired into only on cross-examination of a character witness, unless character itself is an essential element of a claim or defense.
Supporting sources