Rule 405 Methods of Proving Character

• Jurisdiction: Arizona

(a) Reputation or opinion. In all cases in which evidence of character or a trait of character of a person is admissible, proof may be made by testimony as to reputation or by testimony in the form of an opinion. On cross-examination, inquiry is allowable into relevant specific instances of conduct.
(b) Specific instances of conduct. In cases in which character or a trait of character of a person is an essential element of a charge, claim, or defense, proof may also be made of specific instances of that person's conduct.

Comment

This rule specifies how the parties may prove character to the extent they are permitted to do so by Rule 404(a)(1) and (2). The methods are a witness's testimony about the person's reputation, a witness's opinion of the person's character, and a witness's knowledge of specific instances of conduct. The rule imposes no limitation on the use of testimony about reputation or opinion about character.[1] Evidence of specific instances of conduct is a different matter. Because evidence of specific instances of conduct has the most probative value, but also has the greatest capacity to arouse prejudice, to confuse the jurors, to surprise the parties, and to consume time, use of such evidence is limited to two situations. The parties may introduce evidence of specific instances of conduct on direct examination only when the character of the defendant or the victim is an essential element of the charge, claim, or defense.[2] Otherwise, the parties may introduce such evidence only on cross-examination after the witness has testified about the defendant's or victim's reputation, or has given an opinion about the defendant's or the victim's character.[3] By case law, Arizona has further restricted the introduction of evidence of specific acts of violence on the part of the victim to those situations when the defendant knew of the specific acts of violence prior to the incident in question.[4]

A party may introduce character evidence by both expert and nonexpert opinion.[5] If the proponent is attempting to establish character by introducing reputation evidence, the proponent must establish that the witness has had sufficient contacts with the person or the person's acquaintances that the witness would know what the person's reputation is.[6]

Cases

Paragraph (a) - Reputation or opinion.

405.a.010 When a party is permitted to introduce evidence of character, the party may do so either by reputation or opinion testimony.

State v. Rockwell,161 Ariz. 5, 775 P.2d 1069 (1989) (defendant was permitted to introduce his character trait of fabrication, and did so by asking witnesses whether they had an opinion about his character trait of fabricating).

405.a.020 Before a witness may testify about a person's reputation, the proponent must show that the witness had sufficient contact with the person or the person's acquaintances during a relevant time period so the witness would know what the person's reputation is.

Selby v. Savard,134 Ariz. 222, 655 P.2d 342 (1982) (because defamation action involved events after 1968, evidence of plaintiff's reputation in late 1950s was irrelevant).

State v. Jessen,130 Ariz. 1, 633 P.2d 410 (1981) (police detective's "opinion" testimony about victim's reputation...