Opinion ID: 1673726
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: MRE 405(a) provides:

Text: Reputation. 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. On cross-examination, inquiry is allowable into reports of relevant specific instances of conduct. The rule codifies Michigan's common law: As a general rule, evidence of good character may only be rebutted by evidence that it is bad. Specific acts of misconduct may not be shown for that purpose. People v Powell, 223 Mich 633, 640; 194 NW 502 (1923). The prosecutor may cross-examine the defendant's witness to test his knowledge and candor   , and for that purpose he may be asked if he has heard of specific acts of misconduct. People v Rosa, 268 Mich 462, 465; 256 NW 483 (1934). The prosecutor's rebuttal witness may testify only as to reputation, however. In this case, the prosecutor reversed the procedure permitted under MRE 405(a) by inquiring into specific instances of conduct [1] in examination of a rebuttal witness. In lieu of granting leave to appeal, under GCR 1963, 853.2(4), we reverse the judgments of the Court of Appeals and the circuit court and remand the case to the Kalamazoo Circuit Court for a new trial.