Opinion ID: 2452857
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: White's Character Evidence

Text: Hall claims that the trial court improperly excluded Otis Glenn's testimony that White had a reputation for dealing in stolen goods and for ripping people off. Hall claims that the trial court's exclusion of this evidence deprived him of his constitutional right to present a defense. Hall failed to preserve his constitutional claim for appeal. To preserve appellate review, constitutional claims must be made at the first opportunity, with citations to specific constitutional sections. State v. Chambers, 891 S.W.2d 93, 103-04 (Mo. banc 1994). Hall argues that this character evidence was admissible to establish his state of mind when he walked around White's jewelry counter. Hall claims he went to White's store to retrieve watches he had left there a few days earlier; that White told him the watches were worthless and that he threw them away; that he then approached White by moving around the store counter; and he told White he wanted his watches back. Hall asserts that evidence of White's reputation for dealing in stolen goods would have refuted the state's theory that Hall moved around the counter to deliberately attack White. Evidence of the victim's character is generally inadmissible except in specific instances. State v. Waller, 816 S.W.2d 212, 214 (Mo. banc 1991). When the defendant asserts self-defense a victim's reputation for violence is generally admissible on the question of who is the aggressor. Waller, 816 S.W.2d at 216. However, in Waller, we noted that the specific acts of violence must be of a quality such as to be capable of contributing to the defendant's fear of the victim.... Waller, 816 S.W.2d at 216. The evidence that Hall tried to introduce through Glenn's testimony was not evidence of White's reputation for violence and was not relevant to whether Hall might reasonably have feared White, regardless of why Hall moved around the counter. See Harris, 870 S.W.2d at 809. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by rejecting the evidence. Point denied.