Opinion ID: 1706950
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 14

Heading: the bad character evidence

Text: ¶ 97. The Chief of Police in Calhoun City testified during the sentencing phase that his opinion of Bell's reputation in the community for peace and violence was bad. Likewise, a member of the Calhoun County Sheriff's Department testified that his opinion that the reputation of Bell for peace and violence was bad. Bell asserts that this is error because the witnesses were not asked to testify to Bell's general reputation in the community in which he lived and because his character had not been put in issue. In fact, Bell did put his character in issue by placing witnesses on the stand to testify that he was not violent and that he would not hurt anyone who did not first do something to him. The officers were allowed to testify in rebuttal to their opinions of Bell's reputation in his community for peace and violence; and their opinions were that Bell had a bad reputation for peace and violence. Under Miss. R. Evid. 404(a)(1), evidence of the character of the accused may be offered in rebuttal to his own evidence of good character, and we have explicitly held that once a defendant places his character in issue in the penalty phase, the State can then rebut the evidence of the defendant. Davis v. State, 660 So.2d 1228, 1253 (Miss.1995). Rule 405(a) clearly allows evidence of character by testimony as to reputation or by testimony in the form of an opinion. [Emphasis supplied.] The comment to the Rule states clearly that, [r]ecognizing that reputation evidence is nothing more than the opinion of a selected group, Rule 405 broadens the methodology to allow proof of character by opinion. ¶ 98. There is no error here.