Opinion ID: 1191875
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Character Evidence Is Generally Admissible to Establish Undue Influence.

Text: The general rule is that [e]vidence which tends to prove or disprove the subordination of the will of [the] testator to others must, except in extreme cases, take a very wide range[.] 3 Page on the Law of Wills § 29.78, at 577 (William J. Bowe and Douglas H. Parker, eds., 1961); see also 3 Page on Wills, supra, § 29.77, at 131 (Supp. 1998). In Estate of Afong, 26 Haw. at 154, this court stated that: In cases involving the contest of wills upon the ground of undue influence the courts generally permit an unusually wide range of inquiry. . . . In this case [the trial court] permitted the presentation to the jury [to reflect] as accurately as possible the characters involved in the family tragedy, their relations to each other and the ultimate result. (Brackets added.) However, [t]here is no doubt . . . that the undue influence must be proved to have operated as a present constraint at the very time of making the will [.] . . . And yet direct evidence of such influence at the precise time of execution is not indispensable. That may be shown by circumstantial evidence. . . but only in so far as it tends to show that undue influence was in fact operative at the time of the execution. . . . Will of Notley, 15 Haw. at 440-41 (emphases added); see also Estate of Heeb, 26 Haw. at 538. From an evidentiary standpoint, character evidence of disposition to exert undue influence at the time of the will's execution may be admissible under Hawai`i Rules of Evidence (HRE) Rule 404(b), which provides in pertinent part: Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show that he acted in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible where such evidence is probative of any other fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, modus operandi, or absence of mistake or accident. Citing the Advisory Committee of the federal rules of evidence, the commentary to HRE Rule 404 further states that this rule does not deal with the situation where the character of the person is itself an element of a claim or defense. . . . See also 2 J. Weinstein & M. Berger, Weinstein's Evidence & 404[03], at 404-17 (1991). Indeed, HRE Rule 405 provides: Methods of proving character. (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 the person's conduct. (Emphasis added.) Thus, character evidence of the disposition to exert undue influence over the testator or testatrix at the time of a will's execution may be substantively admissible. The circuit court, however, must make a threshold determination under HRE Rule 402 [13] regarding whether the proffered evidence is indeed relevant to one's disposition to exert undue influence over the testator or testatrix at the time of the execution of the will. Then, the circuit court must determine whether the proffered evidence, although relevant, should be excluded under HRE Rule 403, because its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence. Accordingly, the great latitude afforded in the introduction of evidence in a case of this kind is qualified. Under Hawai`i law, character evidence regarding one's disposition to exert undue influence is admissible in a will contest where the contestant has alleged undue influence, only insofar as it tends to show that undue influence was in fact operative at the time of the will's execution, i.e., that undue influence was exerted over the testator/testatrix at the execution of and resulted in the challenged will.