Opinion ID: 1270085
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: jury instruction on bad character

Text: Keith advances as a specification of error the superior court's inclusion of a jury instruction concerning the exclusion of all evidence by the state of Keith's bad character. The questioned instruction read: The state may not introduce evidence of a defendant's bad character to prove his conduct unless and until a defendant places his own character in question by offering evidence of his good character. When the defendant in a homicide case has produced evidence that the deceased attacked him, evidence of the deceased's character may be considered on the question of whether the deceased was in fact the first aggressor. It was only after it had unsuccessfully sought to introduce evidence of Keith's bad character that the state requested, over objection, that this instruction be given. The state had argued, when the defense attempted to introduce evidence of Krivitsky's unstable and violent character, that the state had no objection as long as the state was likewise permitted to introduce evidence of Keith's bad character. The superior court ruled that the state was not permitted to make the accused's character an issue unless Keith first made it an issue by introducing evidence of his good character, but that the defense could introduce such evidence of the victim's character. However, the superior court also indicated that it would consider an instruction informing the jury that the state could not introduce evidence of the defendant's bad character under these circumstances. As a result, the above instruction was given. The superior court ruled correctly in allowing in evidence of the victim's character and disallowing any evidence of Keith's bad character. Alaska Rule of Evidence 404(a) provides, in relevant part: Evidence of a person's character . . is not admissible for the purpose of proving that he acted in conformity therewith on a particular occasion, except: (1) Character of the accused. Evidence of a relevant trait of his character offered by an accused, or by the prosecution to rebut the same; (2) Character of the victim. Evidence of a relevant trait of character of a victim of a crime offered by an accused, or by the prosecution to rebut the same, or evidence of a character trait of peacefulness of the victim offered by the prosecution in a homicide case to rebut evidence that the victim was the first aggressor... . The rule does not suggest that proof of the character of the victim and the accused are interrelated. An accused may offer evidence of a relevant character trait of a victim without its having the effect of granting to the prosecution the right to introduce evidence of his own character. [23] Thus, we conclude that the jury instruction was a correct statement of the law. However, such an instruction is nonetheless, in our view, erroneous. This instruction brought to the jury's attention what evidence was inadmissible and emphasized the possibility of Keith's bad character, leaving the jury to speculate what evidence was kept from them. The general rationale of the rule against allowing character evidence to be introduced by the prosecutor is that it prevents the jury from convicting someone because he has a propensity to commit a crime or has a past history of criminal activity and not whether he has done the act of which he is accused. [24] It has been more fully expressed as follows: The rule is justified primarily on the ground that the probative value of propensity evidence is outweighed by its prejudicial effect on a jury. The introduction of such evidence is said to create a danger that the jury will punish the defendant for offenses other than those charged, or at least that it will convict when unsure of guilt because it is convinced that the defendant is a bad man deserving of punishment. In addition, it is argued that the jury might be unable to identify with a defendant of offensive character, and hence tend to disbelieve the evidence in his favor. At the least, it is said that such evidence would be given greater probative weight than it deserves, and so lead to convictions on insufficient evidence. Furthermore, saddling a person forever with his record might tend to discourage reformation. [25] Despite the exception to and qualifications of the character evidence rule contained in the Rules of Evidence, [26] exclusion has substantial validity as a means of protecting the accused from the possibility of a finding of guilty based on a propensity for bad acts. [27] Thus, we conclude that the giving of a jury instruction of this kind, drawing attention to possible prejudicial inadmissible information regarding the accused, was prejudicial error.