Opinion ID: 709749
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Cross examination of Jackson.

Text: 9 Evidence of character is generally not admissible to show that the person acted in conformity with the character presented on a specific occasion. Fed.R.Evid. 404(a). Evidence of the defendant's character is admissible if it is offered by the defendant. Fed.R.Evid. 404(a)(1). 10 Jackson offered the defense of self-defense to the assault charge. Additionally, he stated that he was a gentleman. On crossexamination he testified that he was not the type of person who would assault an officer unprovoked. These statements tend to bolster Jackson's claim of self-defense and a peaceful nature. This use of character is circumstantial, but nevertheless considered to be character evidence under Rule 404(a)(1). See Notes of Advisory Committee on Rule 404. 11 Jackson contends that the evidence elicited on cross-examination was impermissible character evidence under Fed.R.Evid. 404(b). Rule 404(b) applies, however, when the prosecution seeks to introduce character evidence in its case-in-chief. In Jackson's case, the Government did not offer character evidence until after Jackson asserted his good character. Thus, Rule 404(a) is controlling, not 404(b). Rule 404(b) contains the notice requirement that Jackson claims was violated. Because Rule 404(b) does not apply, this claim is meritless. 12 Jackson also claims that the district court erred when it permitted the Government to question him on cross-examination regarding the lunging incident with Edwards, because that questioning would exceed the scope of direct examination. The extent and scope of cross-examination are within the sound discretion of the trial judge. See United States v. McMillon, 14 F.3d 948, 956 (4th Cir.1994). The court permitted cross-examination on the Edwards incident as impeachment of Jackson's credibility. Jackson's testimony on direct examination tended to portray him as possessing character traits inconsistent with his being guilty of the crime charged. The court's ruling was not arbitrary or irrational and cannot be seen as an abuse of its discretion. 13