Prohibited Uses
Other-act evidence cannot be used to prove that a person has a certain character and then argue that, because of that character, the person probably behaved the same way on th
4. Other Crimes, Wrongs, or Acts: Prohibited Uses
“Evidence of any other crime, wrong, or act is not admissible to prove a person’s character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character.” Fed. R. Evid. 404(b)(1). 55
- This rule represents a particular application of the general concept prohibiting unfairly prejudicial evidence. Jurors should not be tempted to reward parties for their good character or punish them for their bad character; instead, trials focus on specific acts by the parties.
- Lawyers and judges often refer to the evidence excluded by this rule as “propensity” evidence, “character evidence,” or “evidence of other acts.”
- This rule maintains a trial’s focus on specific disputed acts at particular times and places, rather than on the general character of the parties.
- This prohibition applies to crimes, wrongs, or acts that occur before or after the disputed acts. There is no temporal limit.
- The prohibition applies to good acts as well as bad ones.
Other-act evidence cannot be used to prove a person's character and then argue the person acted in keeping with it on the occasion in dispute. That act-to-trait-to-conduct chain is the forbidden propensity inference.
Other-act evidence cannot be used to prove that a person has a certain character and then argue that, because of that character, the person probably behaved the same way on the occasion in dispute. That chain of reasoning, from a prior or later act to a character trait to conduct in keeping with the trait, is the forbidden propensity inference. The bar is a specific application of the broader concern with unfairly prejudicial evidence: jurors should decide the case on the specific disputed acts, not reward or punish a party for being a generally good or bad person.
The prohibition reaches any other crime, wrong, or act, whether it happened before or after the disputed event, because there is no temporal limit. It also reaches good acts offered to show a person acted well in conformity, not just bad acts.
The truth, seriousness, or relevance of the other act does not license its use for this purpose. What matters is whether it is being offered for the character-to-conduct inference, which is not permitted for that use.
Character -> conduct = the barred chain.
If the other act is offered to say 'that's the kind of person who does this, so he probably did it again,' it cannot come in for that use.
before or after: there is no temporal limit.
A later act is barred just like an earlier one.
good acts too: not only bad character.
Offering a good act to show conforming good conduct is barred for that use as well.
Trial stays on the specific disputed acts, not on whether the party is a good or bad person.
Synonyms to recognize: 'propensity' evidence, 'character evidence,' 'evidence of other acts.'
A plaintiff sues a driver for negligence in a collision. The plaintiff offers proof that the driver was cited for careless driving on three earlier occasions, arguing that this shows the driver is a careless person and therefore drove carelessly this time.
That is the propensity use: the earlier acts are offered only to establish a careless character and to infer conduct in keeping with it. Offered for that purpose, the other-act evidence is not admissible, because the prohibition bars using other acts to prove character in order to show the person acted in accordance with that character on the occasion in question.
The result would be the same if the cited incidents had occurred after the collision rather than before, since there is no temporal limit.
The option reaches 'barred' but rests on a side fact (the act is unrelated, a different place, too remote) instead of the propensity use.
Name the operative bar: the evidence is barred because it is offered for the character-to-conduct inference, not because of the side fact.The option leans on the act being real, undisputed, or serious as the reason it comes in.
The truth or seriousness of the other act does not license the propensity use; that use is barred regardless.Sweeping language like 'all other-act evidence is admissible,' 'later acts are always allowed,' or 'good acts are never barred.'
The propensity use is barred regardless of timing and for good acts too; the absolute is false.The option makes relevance, a balancing test, or a permitted-purpose exception the operative test.
The printed bar forbids the character-to-conduct inference itself; relevance or a balance does not make the propensity use admissible.Claims only bad acts are barred, only prior acts are barred, or the act must have led to a conviction.
The bar reaches any other crime, wrong, or act, before or after, good or bad, with no conviction requirement.Requires the act to have occurred before the disputed act, or treats a later act as outside the rule.
There is no temporal limit; the bar applies to acts before or after the disputed act.the stem offers some other act by a person, earlier or later, good or bad, and the offering party's argument is that the act shows what kind of person this is so the person probably acted the same way on the occasion in dispute.
When the only link is character to conduct in conformity, you are looking at the prohibited propensity use.
A defendant is on trial for a single act of theft from a store. The prosecutor offers proof that the defendant stole from a different store two years earlier. The prosecutor's stated argument is that the earlier theft shows the defendant is a thief by nature and therefore probably committed the charged theft as well.
Offered for that purpose, is the earlier-theft evidence admissible?
A defendant is on trial for assaulting a neighbor on a particular evening. The prosecutor offers proof that, months after that evening, the defendant got into a separate bar fight with a stranger. The prosecutor's argument is that the later fight shows the defendant is a violent person who would have started the charged assault.
Offered for that purpose, may the later-fight evidence be admitted?
A defendant is on trial for a single act of fraud. The defendant offers proof that, on several earlier occasions, she returned lost wallets she found and donated to charity. Her argument is that these good deeds show she is an honest person and therefore would not have committed the charged fraud.
Offered for that purpose, is the good-deeds evidence admissible?
In a civil suit, a plaintiff offers proof that a witness for the defense once lied on a job application years ago. The plaintiff's argument is that this earlier lie shows the witness is a dishonest person who is therefore lying now in his testimony about the disputed events.
Offered for that purpose, is the earlier-lie evidence barred?
A defendant is on trial for negligently causing a warehouse fire on one occasion. The plaintiff offers proof that the defendant carelessly handled flammable materials at a different warehouse on an earlier day, arguing that this shows the defendant is a careless person who would have acted carelessly with the fire at issue.
Is the earlier-handling evidence admissible for that purpose?