Rule 405: Methods of Proving Character.

Article IV. Relevance


(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. After application to the court, inquiry on cross-examination is allowable into relevant specific instances of conduct. The conditions which must be satisfied before allowing inquiry on cross-examination about specific instances of conduct are:

(1) The court upon request must hold a hearing outside the jury's presence,

(2) The court must determine that a reasonable factual basis exists for the inquiry, and

(3) The court must determine that the probative value of a specific instance of conduct on the character witness's credibility outweighs its prejudicial effect on substantive issues.

(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.

Advisory Commission Comments.

This rule changes Tennessee law, which does not permit character to be proved by personal opinion.

Cross-examination of character witnesses for the accused raises a delicate problem. The examining lawyer can ask the witness about rumored arrests and charges concerning the defendant, because the witness's knowledge of the rumors might impeach the witness in the eyes of the jurors. If the witness admits having heard unfavorable rumors, the jury may decide that the witness's reputation or opinion testimony is entitled to little weight. If the witness has not heard the rumors, the witness's testimony may likewise be taken with a grain of salt because the witness is unfamiliar with the accused or the accused's community.

The indirect effect of such a cross-examination may be the more damaging to the accused. While the jury will be instructed to consider the rumors only as affecting the character witness's credibility, the practical danger is that such rumors  - even if untrue  - place the defendant's character in a bad light with the jurors. In an effort to alleviate the problem, the proposed rule sets out detailed procedural safeguards. The cross-examiner must apply to the court for permission to inquire into specific instances of conduct, the jury must be excused, and the court must determine both that a factual basis exists and that probative value for impeachment outweighs prejudicial effect on the accused's character.

 Part (b) allows substantive proof of specific acts where the character is an element of a cause of action or a defense. For instance, the defendant who called a defamed plaintiff a "crook" can prove the plaintiff embezzled funds.

Back To top

Back To top