Common Character Evidence Questions in Self-Defense Cases – North Carolina Criminal Law

Character proof is without doubt one of the most difficult areas of proof legislation to navigate, as Jessie Smith observes right here. Jessie’s weblog contains a helpful chart to use Guidelines 404 and 405 and likewise hyperlinks to the bench e book chapter.

I discover it useful to see these guidelines in motion with concrete examples. A standard context wherein the character proof guidelines come into play in prison circumstances is self-defense circumstances. This publish discusses a number of frequent questions that come up, in addition to some adjoining points.

Let’s use a easy hypothetical:

The defendant is charged with capturing the sufferer exterior of a bar after an argument about whether or not the sufferer approached the defendant’s girlfriend. The defendant claims that the sufferer got here at him first with a knife.

The questions beneath take care of what the defendant can elicit in regards to the sufferer and what the State can elicit in regards to the defendant. As we work via the examples, do not forget that Rule 404 addresses when character proof is admissible or inadmissible, and Rule 405 addresses the strategy of proof for the character proof (fame/opinion proof or particular cases of conduct).

Guidelines 404 and 405 are included on the finish of the publish for reference.

Proof in regards to the Sufferer

Can the defendant elicit proof that the sufferer stabbed somebody two years in the past? 

This prior incident is admissible if the defendant knew in regards to the prior incident on the time he used lethal pressure within the case at hand (he was both current through the prior incident or in any other case knew about it).

The proof is admissible as a result of it illuminates what was within the defendant’s thoughts on the time he used lethal pressure; it tends to indicate that the defendant’s worry was cheap and that the defendant had an inexpensive perception in the necessity to defend himself. See Rule 405(b) (particular incidents are admissible the place character is a necessary aspect of a cost or a protection, and a necessary aspect of self-defense is the defendant’s cheap perception in the necessity to defend himself towards the specter of hurt); State v. Everett, 178 N.C. App. 44, 51-52 (2006), aff’d with out precedential worth, 361 N.C. 217 (2007), citing to State v. Winfrey, 298 N.C. 260, 262 (1979); State v. Johnson, 270 N.C. 215, 219 (1967) (“a jury ought to, so far as is feasible, be positioned in defendant’s scenario and possess the identical data of hazard and the need for motion, to be able to determine if defendant acted below cheap apprehension of hazard to his individual or his life”).

Notice that the proof pertaining to the prior incident is just not coming in right here to indicate the sufferer’s propensity to commit violent acts, however fairly to indicate what was within the defendant’s thoughts on the time he used lethal pressure. There’s some authority for the proposition that, earlier than the defendant introduces proof of the sufferer’s particular acts of violence, the defendant should first current viable proof of the necessity to defend himself. See State v. Jones, 83 N.C. App. 593, 599 (1986); State v. Stone, 73 N.C. App. 691, 694 (1985); State v. Allmond, 27 N.C. App. 29, 31 (1975). In fact, if the protection anticipates presenting the case for self-defense later within the trial, the court docket might discover the proof conditionally related below Rule 104(b).

Is extrinsic proof allowed to show up this incident from two years in the past?

Sure. Rule 405(b) doesn’t include language limiting using extrinsic proof. See Everett, 178 N.C. App. at 52 (2006), aff’d with out precedential worth, 361 N.C. 217 (2007) (“Defendant introduced proof she killed the sufferer in self-defense and tendered Rhodes as a witness. Rhodes’s testimony relating to the sufferer’s violent conduct on the automobile dealership, which was identified by defendant, is related and admissible to indicate whether or not her ‘apprehension of loss of life and bodily hurt was cheap.’”)

Extrinsic proof might turn into extreme or cumulative below Rule 403 and be barred from admission.

What if the defendant was unaware of this prior violent act?

The sufferer’s prior violent act is just not admissible if the defendant was unaware of the incident as a result of the aggressive character of the sufferer is just not a necessary aspect of self-defense (even if the query of whether or not the sufferer was the aggressor within the case at hand is a central one). See Rule 405(b); State v. Bass, 371 N.C. 456 (2018), mentioned by John Rubin right here).

How else would possibly this violent incident come into proof?

The sufferer’s prior violent incident might doubtlessly are available in as rebuttal if the State elicits testimony relating to the sufferer’s fame for peacefulness, see Rule 405(a) (the State might accomplish that provided that this had been a murder case and the defendant had introduced proof that the sufferer was the primary aggressor, see Rule 404(a)(2)). It might additionally are available in to question the sufferer’s testimony below Rule 609 if the earlier incident resulted in a conviction. Lastly, there could also be 404(b) exceptions permitting admission of the earlier incident (extra factual particulars could be mandatory; the hypothetical is deliberately bare-bones to be able to observe the principles in motion in probably the most basic context doable).

Are the sufferer’s prior threats towards the defendant admissible?

Sure, as once more, they go to indicate the defendant’s cheap worry and cheap perception in the necessity to defend himself. See Rule 405(b); Johnson, 270 N.C. at 219-20; G.S. 14-33.1 (proof of former threats towards the defendant by the individual alleged to have been assaulted by him are admissible to indicate reasonableness of apprehension and reasonableness of quantity of pressure utilized by defendant).

Can the defendant elicit sufferer’s convictions primarily based on the prior violent incident?

Doubtlessly. See State v. Jacobs, 363 N.C. 815, 824-25 (2010) (when the defendant testified that the sufferer was a violent one that had been incarcerated, the trial court docket erred by excluding proof of the sufferer’s prior convictions to corroborate the defendant’s testimony; appellate court docket declines to use the Wilkerson “naked truth of conviction” rule as a result of the conviction belongs to sufferer not defendant and sufferer is just not on trial). However see, State v. Greenfield, 262 N.C. App. 631, 637-38 (2018) (trial court docket correctly excluded sufferer’s prior conviction for armed theft below Rule 403).

Is fame or opinion testimony relating to the sufferer’s character for violence admissible?

If the defendant was conscious of this fame, the proof is admissible to indicate the defendant’s worry of hurt was cheap, as mentioned above. See State v. Watson, 338 N.C. 168, 186-88 (1994), citing Johnson, 270 N.C. at 218–19.

However even when the defendant was unaware of this fame, the fame/opinion proof could also be admissible to indicate that the sufferer was the preliminary aggressor below Rule 404(a)(2) and 405(a). See Watson, 338 N.C. at 186-88, citing Kenneth S. Broun, Brandis and Broun on North Carolina Proof § 90, p. 273 (4th ed. 1993); State v. Barbour, 295 N.C. 66 (1978); Winfrey, 298 N.C. at 262 (noting that the admission of such character proof the place the defendant is unaware of the sufferer’s fame or opinion needs to be rigorously restricted to conditions the place all of the proof surrounding using pressure is circumstantial or the “nature of the transaction” is unsure).

Can the defendant elicit proof that the sufferer often carried a knife?

This proof falls below Rule 406, fairly than Guidelines 404 and 405, because the proof pertains to behavior fairly than character. It’s a repeated sample of conduct, not a personality trait.

However is such proof related? Doubtless, if the events contest whether or not the sufferer was carrying a knife on the day in query. But when this truth is just not in dispute, the probative worth could also be minimal.

Proof in regards to the Defendant

Can the State elicit proof that the defendant assaulted one other individual beforehand?

Typically no, as such proof could be inadmissible propensity proof. See Rule 404(b). It’s improper to convey to the jury that the defendant is probably going responsible of assault on this event as a result of he assaulted somebody previously. See State v. Dennison, 163 N.C. App. 375, 383 (2004), rev’d on different grounds, 359 N.C. 312 (2005) (“elevating a self-defense declare doesn’t interject a defendant’s character into the proceedings, and a defendant’s character is just not a necessary aspect of a self-defense declare;” the trial court docket dedicated prejudicial error by permitting the State to introduce particular cases of conduct proof pertaining to the defendant’s character for violence).

Nonetheless, as within the parallel query relating to the sufferer above, if the defendant affirmatively elicits fame/opinion proof relating to his peacefulness, the prior incident could be admissible in rebuttal. See Rule 404(a)(1); 405(a). And if the defendant had been convicted of a criminal offense in reference to the prior assault, the conviction might be used to question the defendant below Rule 609 if the defendant testifies.

Additionally, as above, the incident might be admissible if there’s a correct 404(b) function (Does the prior assault make clear the defendant’s motive or intent within the case at hand? Did the defendant beforehand assault somebody in an analogous and distinctive means, such that it might be stated that the defendant has a modus operandi?).

Can the State elicit fame or opinion testimony relating to the defendant’s character for violence?

Once more, the reply is usually no. Such testimony is inadmissible propensity proof, except the defendant has opened the door by affirmatively placing his character for peacefulness at difficulty. See Rule 404(a), (a)(1).

Can the State elicit proof that the defendant often carried a gun?

Provided that such proof is related. Such proof probably has little or no probative worth, provided that the defendant is acknowledging as a part of his self-defense declare that he possessed a firearm and shot the sufferer.

Guidelines 404 and 405 (emphasis added)

Rule 404. Character proof not admissible to show conduct; exceptions; different crimes.

(a) Character proof typically. – Proof of an individual’s character or a trait of his character is just not admissible for the aim of proving that he acted in conformity therewith on a specific event, besides:

(1) Character of accused. – Proof of a pertinent trait of his character supplied by an accused, or by the prosecution to rebut the identical;

(2) Character of sufferer. – Proof of a pertinent trait of character of the sufferer of the crime supplied by an accused, or by the prosecution to rebut the identical, or proof of a personality trait of peacefulness of the sufferer supplied by the prosecution in a murder case to rebut proof that the sufferer was the primary aggressor;

(3) Character of witness. – Proof of the character of a witness, as offered in Guidelines 607, 608, and 609.

(b) Different crimes, wrongs, or acts. – Proof of different crimes, wrongs, or acts is just not admissible to show the character of an individual to be able to present that he acted in conformity therewith. It could, nevertheless, be admissible for different functions, resembling proof of motive, alternative, intent, preparation, plan, data, id, or absence of mistake, entrapment or accident. Admissible proof might embody proof of an offense dedicated by a juvenile if it will have been a Class A, B1, B2, C, D, or E felony if dedicated by an grownup.

Rule 405. Strategies of proving character.

(a) Popularity or opinion. – In all circumstances wherein proof of character or a trait of character of an individual is admissible, proof could also be made by testimony as to fame or by testimony within the type of an opinion. On cross‑examination, inquiry is allowable into related particular cases of conduct. Skilled testimony on character or a trait of character is just not admissible as circumstantial proof of conduct.

(b) Particular cases of conduct. – In circumstances wherein character or a trait of character of an individual is a necessary aspect of a cost, declare, or protection, proof can also be made from particular cases of his conduct. (1983, c. 701, s. 1.)

Because of Joe Hyde for his help with this publish. See his current publish on proof of gang affiliation for extra on character proof.