Character Evidence (Rules 404-405)
Evidence · Lesson 04
Character Evidence (Rules 404-405)
這一課問的是：人格證據是否用於允許之目的？是否採適當形式？
ActorActObjectStandardConsequence
Visual Scene · the picture in your head
Issue. Is character evidence offered for a permitted purpose, and is the proper form used?
這一課問的是：人格證據是否用於允許之目的？是否採適當形式？
Core Terminology · 7 must-know
Tap a card to flip and reveal the meaning.
Rule 404(a)
Tap to see meaning
Character evidence generally inadmissible to prove conduct.
404(a) 默認禁止人格證據證行為。
Rule 404(b)
Tap to see meaning
Prior bad acts admissible for other purposes (motive, opportunity, intent, KIPP).
404(b) KIPPOMIA。
Rule 405(a)
Tap to see meaning
Reputation/opinion form when character admissible.
405(a) 形式：聲譽/意見。
Rule 405(b)
Tap to see meaning
Specific instances when character is essential element.
405(b)：人格為必要要件 → 具體事件。
Rule 413-415
Tap to see meaning
Prior sexual misconduct admissible in sex crime cases.
413-415 性犯罪。
MIMIC
Tap to see meaning
Motive, intent, mistake/absence, identity, common scheme.
MIMIC 助記。
Rule 404(a)(2)
Tap to see meaning
Criminal defendant may open the door to own character.
404(a)(2) 刑事被告可開門。
Issue · what this lesson is really about
Is character evidence offered for a permitted purpose, and is the proper form used?
這一課問的是：人格證據是否用於允許之目的？是否採適當形式？
Trigger words & phrases that should flag this issue:
characterpropensityprior bad actsreputationopinion
Expression Bank · how lawyers actually say it
Six function → sentence patterns. Use these in essay applications.
| Function | English sentence | 中文 |
|---|---|---|
| State 404(a) | Character evidence is generally inadmissible to prove conduct in conformity. | 人格證據默認不可證行為符合。 |
| Apply 404(b) | Prior bad acts admissible for purposes other than character (MIMIC). | 先前壞行可為非人格目的採用。 |
| Apply 405 | Form: reputation/opinion generally; specific instances only when character is element or on cross. | 形式：聲譽/意見；具體事件僅必要要件或交叉詰問。 |
Rule Sentence · the workhorse
Under Rule 404(a), character evidence is generally inadmissible to prove a person acted in conformity with that character; under Rule 404(b), evidence of other acts is admissible for non-character purposes such as motive, opportunity, intent, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake.
Sentence Anatomy · 5 roles, 5 colors
Every rule sentence breaks into five visual roles.
Actor 行為人proponent提出人
Act 行為offering character evidence提出人格證據
Object 對象character of person人之人格
Standard 法律標準404(a) bar + 404(b) carve + 405 form404(a) + 404(b) + 405
Consequence 後果admitted or excluded採用或排除
Casebook Snapshot · a real American case
Huddleston v. United States
Holding. Evidence of prior similar acts under Rule 404(b) is admissible if the jury could reasonably conclude by a preponderance that the act occurred. The court need not make a preliminary finding by clear and convincing evidence; Rule 104(b) conditional-relevance standard governs.
Why it matters. Huddleston set the low foundational threshold for 404(b) evidence: jury-resolvable by preponderance.
Huddleston：404(b) 之先前行為條件相關 — 陪審員可優勢證據認定即可。
Common Mistakes · what trips students
✗ prior bad acts 永遠不可採。
✓ 404(b) admits for non-character purposes.
404(b) 為非人格目的可採。
✗ character witness 可以舉具體事件。
✓ Direct: reputation/opinion only; specific instances allowed only on cross.
直接：聲譽/意見；具體事件僅交叉。
Mini IRAC · build the Application
Issue. Is evidence of D's prior bank robbery admissible in his current bank-robbery prosecution to prove identity?
Rule. Under Rule 404(b), evidence of other acts may be admissible for purposes other than character, such as motive, identity, or modus operandi.
Application (model). The prior bank robbery and current one share a distinctive method — identical disguise, getaway route, and demand-note wording. Because Rule 404(b) admits other-acts evidence to prove identity when the prior and current acts share a distinctive method (modus operandi), the fact that the two robberies share unique modus operandi signatures means the prior act is highly probative of identity.
Pick the right element for each blank:
g1.
g2.
g3.
Conclusion. Therefore, the prior robbery is admissible under 404(b) to prove identity (subject to Rule 403).
MBE Check · multiple choice
In D's assault trial, D calls W to testify that D is a peaceful person. W testifies: "In my opinion, D is non-violent. Once, D walked away from a bar fight." Is the specific-instance testimony admissible on direct?
Mini Essay · write the Application paragraph
Facts. In a fraud trial, the prosecution seeks to introduce evidence that D committed two similar frauds five years earlier — using identical fake invoices on identical companies. D objects on Rule 404 grounds.
Call. Should the court admit the evidence?
Practice Drill · tap to build the rule
Drop the chips here in correct order:
Tap chips to add → tap chips in the target to remove: