Section 23.19 Character of Defendant

• Library: Criminal Practice 2012 Supp

2. (§23.19) Character of Defendant

The law presumes that every person’s character is good, and the defendant has the right to be tried under that presumption. State v. Pinkston, 79 S.W.2d 1046, 1047 (Mo. 1935). When there is substantial evidence of the defendant’s good character, the defendant is entitled to a jury instruction on its relevance. State v. Woods, 428 S.W.2d 521, 523 (Mo. 1968); MAI-CR 3d 310.40.

Reputation or character testimony is admissible only when the defendant’s reputation is in issue. State v. Milligan, 654 S.W.2d 204, 208 (Mo. App. W.D. 1983); State v. Johnson, 496 S.W.2d 852, 857 (Mo. 1973). “[T]he prosecution may not call a reputation character witness unless the defendant first calls such a witness.” Haynam v. Laclede Elec. Coop., Inc., 827 S.W.2d 200, 205–06 (Mo. banc 1992); IA John H. Wigmore, Wigmore on Evidence § 58 (1983). “Except for the character trait of truthfulness and veracity, a defendant does not put his character into evidence by simply testifying.” State v. Gregory, 822 S.W.2d 946, 949 (Mo. App. S.D. 1992). Any impeachment of a defendant’s character must be confined to the issue of credibility, unless a defendant’s evidence goes to reputation for some character trait other than truthfulness. Id. A defendant may not be impeached by showing that the defendant’s general reputation for morality is bad or by showing specific acts of immorality; the attack must be addressed directly to the reputation of the defendant for truth and veracity. Id. Thus, it was not proper for the state to elicit evidence concerning drinking slogans displayed on the defendant’s van in an involuntary manslaughter prosecution because the slogans were not relevant. State v. Hernandez, 815 S.W.2d 67, 69–71 (Mo. App. S.D. 1991).

In addition, “truthfulness” is not synonymous with “honesty” in the context of character evidence; “honesty” encompasses truthfulness but has a more comprehensive meaning. Gregory, 822 S.W.2d at 950...