Bar Exam (Uniform) Quiz: Character Evidence
20 questions · exam conditions
0:00
Character EvidenceQuestion 1 of 20

In a federal fraud trial, the defendant is accused of orchestrating a complex scheme involving falsified investment documents. The defendant takes the stand and testifies in his own defense. On cross-examination, the prosecutor asks, "Isn't it true that you were fired from your previous accounting job for embezzling funds, even though you were never criminally charged?" The defendant's attorney objects.

Is the prosecutor's question permissible? Select one.

Yes, because the act of embezzlement is probative of the defendant's character for untruthfulness.
Yes, because evidence of prior bad acts is admissible to show a common scheme or plan under FRE 404(b).
No, because extrinsic evidence is not admissible to prove specific instances of a witness's conduct to attack their character for truthfulness.
No, because the defendant has not opened the door by offering evidence of his good character for truthfulness.
← Back to quizzes

Bar Exam (Uniform) Quiz

Bar Exam (Uniform) Quiz: Character Evidence

Practice Character Evidence in Bar Exam (Uniform) with focused quiz questions that help you check what you know, review explanations, and build confidence with test-style prompts.

What this quiz covers

This quiz focuses on Character Evidence, giving you a quick way to practice the rules, question types, and explanations that matter most for Bar Exam (Uniform).

How to use this quiz

Try each quiz question before looking at the correct answer. Use the explanations to review missed ideas, then come back to similar questions until the pattern feels familiar.

All questions

Question 1

In a federal fraud trial, the defendant is accused of orchestrating a complex scheme involving falsified investment documents. The defendant takes the stand and testifies in his own defense. On cross-examination, the prosecutor asks, "Isn't it true that you were fired from your previous accounting job for embezzling funds, even though you were never criminally charged?" The defendant's attorney objects.

Is the prosecutor's question permissible? Select one.

  1. Yes, because the act of embezzlement is probative of the defendant's character for untruthfulness. (correct answer)
  2. Yes, because evidence of prior bad acts is admissible to show a common scheme or plan under FRE 404(b).
  3. No, because extrinsic evidence is not admissible to prove specific instances of a witness's conduct to attack their character for truthfulness.
  4. No, because the defendant has not opened the door by offering evidence of his good character for truthfulness.
Explanation: The correct answer is A. When a defendant chooses to testify, he places his credibility at issue, just like any other witness. Under FRE 608(b), on cross-examination of a witness, the court may allow an inquiry into specific instances of conduct if they are probative of the character for truthfulness or untruthfulness of the witness. Embezzlement is an act of dishonesty and is therefore highly probative of the defendant's character for untruthfulness. B is incorrect because the question is being used for impeachment, not as substantive evidence under 404(b). C is incorrect because the prosecutor is merely asking a question on cross-examination, not introducing extrinsic evidence (like a termination letter). The prosecutor is bound by the defendant's answer. D is incorrect because by taking the stand, the defendant's character for truthfulness is automatically at issue, and he does not need to offer evidence of good character to 'open the door' to this type of impeachment.

Question 2

At a defendant's trial for statutory rape, the defendant claims the victim consented and that he reasonably believed she was of age. The prosecution seeks to introduce evidence that the defendant was previously accused of, but not convicted of, statutory rape five years prior under similar circumstances. The prosecutor argues the evidence is admissible to show the defendant's 'depraved sexual instinct' and propensity.

Is the evidence of the prior accusation admissible on the grounds argued by the prosecutor? Select one.

  1. Yes, because the evidence is relevant to show the defendant's knowledge and absence of mistake regarding the victim's age.
  2. Yes, because FRE 413 allows evidence of a defendant's other sexual assaults to be used for any relevant matter, including propensity. (correct answer)
  3. No, because a mere accusation is not a prior bad act and is too prejudicial to be admitted.
  4. No, because the prosecutor is arguing for its admission based on propensity, which is forbidden by FRE 404.
Explanation: When you encounter evidence of prior sexual offenses in criminal law, you need to distinguish between the general propensity rule and specific exceptions for sexual assault cases. The correct answer is B because Federal Rule of Evidence 413 creates a specific exception to the general prohibition against propensity evidence. FRE 413 explicitly allows evidence of a defendant's commission of other sexual assaults in sexual assault prosecutions, and this evidence may be considered for any matter to which it is relevant, including the defendant's propensity to commit such acts. Statutory rape qualifies as sexual assault under this rule, so the prior accusation is admissible even when the prosecutor explicitly argues for propensity purposes. Answer A incorrectly suggests this falls under FRE 404(b)'s knowledge exception. While knowledge of age could be relevant, the prosecutor here is explicitly arguing propensity, not knowledge or absence of mistake. Answer C is wrong because accusations can constitute prior bad acts under the evidence rules, and the probative value here likely outweighs prejudicial effect given FRE 413's specific allowance for such evidence in sexual assault cases. Answer D reflects the general rule under FRE 404(a) that prohibits propensity evidence, but it ignores the critical exception created by FRE 413 for sexual assault cases. Study tip: Remember that FRE 413-415 create major exceptions to the anti-propensity rule specifically for sexual assault and child molestation cases. When you see prior sexual offenses in these contexts, think about these special rules first, not the general FRE 404 prohibition.

Question 3

A defendant is on trial for possession of illegal narcotics found in his apartment during a police search. A police officer testifies for the prosecution. On cross-examination, the defense attorney asks, "Officer, isn't it true that you were suspended from the force for 30 days last year for planting evidence in an unrelated case?" The prosecutor objects and argues that this is improper character evidence. The officer was disciplined internally but never charged with a crime.

How should the court rule on the prosecutor's objection? Select one.

  1. Sustain the objection, because the officer is not on trial and his character is not at issue.
  2. Sustain the objection, because a suspension is not a criminal conviction and cannot be used for impeachment.
  3. Overrule the objection, because the evidence is admissible to show the officer's motive to frame the current defendant.
  4. Overrule the objection, because planting evidence is a specific act of dishonesty that can be inquired into on cross-examination to attack the officer's credibility. (correct answer)
Explanation: When you encounter questions about impeaching witnesses, focus on the rules that allow attorneys to attack a witness's credibility through evidence of dishonesty, even without criminal convictions. The defense can properly inquire about the officer's suspension for planting evidence because this specific act directly relates to truthfulness and honesty—core components of witness credibility. Under the rules of evidence, cross-examination may include questions about specific instances of conduct that are probative of the witness's character for truthfulness, even if no criminal charges resulted. Planting evidence is quintessentially dishonest conduct that bears directly on whether the officer can be trusted to testify truthfully. Answer A is incorrect because while the officer isn't on trial, his credibility as a witness is absolutely at issue once he takes the stand. Any witness who testifies opens their credibility to attack. Answer B misses the mark by assuming only criminal convictions can be used for impeachment. The rules allow inquiry into specific acts of dishonesty regardless of whether they resulted in criminal charges. Answer C reaches the right conclusion but for the wrong reason. This isn't about showing motive to frame the current defendant—there's no evidence connecting the prior misconduct to this specific case. The proper basis is credibility impeachment. Remember this key distinction: while you generally can't introduce evidence of a person's bad character, the rules are more permissive when it comes to attacking witness credibility. Specific acts of dishonesty can be the subject of cross-examination even without convictions, as long as they're genuinely probative of truthfulness.

Question 4

A defendant is on trial for mail fraud. The prosecution introduces evidence of the defendant's prior conviction for perjury, which occurred three years ago. The defendant has not yet testified and does not plan to testify. The defendant's attorney objects to the introduction of the perjury conviction.

How should the court rule on the objection? Select one.

  1. Sustain the objection, because the prejudicial effect of the perjury conviction substantially outweighs its probative value.
  2. Sustain the objection, because the conviction can only be used to impeach the defendant if he chooses to testify. (correct answer)
  3. Overrule the objection, because perjury is a crime of dishonesty and is highly relevant to a fraud charge.
  4. Overrule the objection, because the prior conviction is admissible to show the defendant's intent to defraud.
Explanation: When you encounter evidence questions involving prior convictions, you need to distinguish between two different purposes: impeachment of a testifying witness versus proving character or propensity. This distinction is crucial under Federal Rule of Evidence 609. The correct answer is B because prior convictions can only be used to impeach a witness's credibility under Rule 609 when that person actually testifies. Since the defendant hasn't testified and doesn't plan to testify, there's no testimony to impeach. The perjury conviction cannot be introduced for impeachment purposes because the defendant isn't a witness in this case. Here's why the other answers are wrong: A incorrectly applies a balancing test that would only be relevant if the evidence were otherwise admissible, but since the defendant isn't testifying, Rule 609 doesn't even apply. C misunderstands the law by suggesting the conviction is "highly relevant" to fraud charges - while both involve dishonesty, prior convictions generally cannot be used to show propensity to commit similar crimes under Rule 404(b). D incorrectly suggests the prior perjury conviction could prove intent to defraud in the current mail fraud case, but this would violate the character evidence prohibition unless it fits a specific exception, which isn't established here. Key strategy: Always ask yourself whether the defendant is testifying when you see prior conviction questions. If they're not testifying, Rule 609 impeachment is off the table. Remember that prior convictions generally can't be used to show criminal propensity, only to impeach credibility of testifying witnesses.

Question 5

At a defendant's trial for statutory rape, the defendant claims the victim consented and that he reasonably believed she was of age. The prosecution seeks to introduce evidence that the defendant was previously accused of, but not convicted of, statutory rape five years prior under similar circumstances. The prosecutor argues the evidence is admissible to show the defendant's 'depraved sexual instinct' and propensity.

Is the evidence of the prior accusation admissible on the grounds argued by the prosecutor? Select one.

  1. Yes, because the evidence is relevant to show the defendant's knowledge and absence of mistake regarding the victim's age.
  2. Yes, because FRE 413 allows evidence of a defendant's other sexual assaults to be used for any relevant matter, including propensity. (correct answer)
  3. No, because a mere accusation is not a prior bad act and is too prejudicial to be admitted.
  4. No, because the prosecutor is arguing for its admission based on propensity, which is forbidden by FRE 404.
Explanation: When you encounter evidence of prior sexual offenses in criminal law, you need to distinguish between the general propensity rule and specific exceptions for sexual assault cases. The correct answer is B because Federal Rule of Evidence 413 creates a specific exception to the general prohibition against propensity evidence. FRE 413 explicitly allows evidence of a defendant's commission of other sexual assaults in sexual assault prosecutions, and this evidence may be considered for any matter to which it is relevant, including the defendant's propensity to commit such acts. Statutory rape qualifies as sexual assault under this rule, so the prior accusation is admissible even when the prosecutor explicitly argues for propensity purposes. Answer A incorrectly suggests this falls under FRE 404(b)'s knowledge exception. While knowledge of age could be relevant, the prosecutor here is explicitly arguing propensity, not knowledge or absence of mistake. Answer C is wrong because accusations can constitute prior bad acts under the evidence rules, and the probative value here likely outweighs prejudicial effect given FRE 413's specific allowance for such evidence in sexual assault cases. Answer D reflects the general rule under FRE 404(a) that prohibits propensity evidence, but it ignores the critical exception created by FRE 413 for sexual assault cases. Study tip: Remember that FRE 413-415 create major exceptions to the anti-propensity rule specifically for sexual assault and child molestation cases. When you see prior sexual offenses in these contexts, think about these special rules first, not the general FRE 404 prohibition.

Question 6

You represent a plaintiff in a breach of contract case. The defendant, a supplier, failed to deliver goods on time. The defendant claims the delay was due to an unforeseeable factory shutdown. At trial, you seek to introduce testimony from three other businesses that in the past year, the same supplier breached their contracts by failing to deliver goods on time, each time blaming an unforeseeable event.

Is this testimony regarding the supplier's other breaches likely to be admitted? Select one.

  1. No, because the supplier's character for untrustworthiness is not admissible in a civil case.
  2. No, because the evidence constitutes impermissible proof of a litigation habit.
  3. Yes, because the evidence is admissible to show the supplier's routine business practice under FRE 406.
  4. Yes, because the evidence is admissible to show absence of mistake or a common plan under FRE 404(b). (correct answer)
Explanation: The correct answer is D. While FRE 404(b) is most often used in criminal cases, it also applies in civil cases. The evidence of prior, similar breaches is not being offered to show the supplier has a bad character and acted in conformity with it. Instead, it is being offered for the non-propensity purpose of showing that the current breach was not an accident or mistake, but part of a common plan or scheme of making excuses for non-performance. This evidence directly refutes the defendant's specific claim of an 'unforeseeable' event. A is incorrect because the evidence is offered for a specific non-propensity purpose, not to prove general character. B is a distractor; 'litigation habit' is not a recognized bar to evidence. C is incorrect because three instances of breaching contracts with different excuses do not rise to the level of a specific, semi-automatic 'routine practice' like mailing a letter every day; it's better analyzed as prior acts showing intent or absence of mistake.

Question 7

A woman is on trial for the murder of her husband. She claims that she killed him in self-defense after years of abuse. To support her claim, she seeks to testify about a specific incident one month before the killing, where her husband, in a drunken rage, beat her severely and threatened to kill her.

Is the woman's testimony about this prior incident of abuse admissible? Select one.

  1. Yes, to show the husband's violent character and that he was the first aggressor.
  2. Yes, to show the defendant's state of mind and the reasonableness of her belief that she was in imminent danger. (correct answer)
  3. No, because specific acts of a victim are not admissible unless character is an essential element of the defense.
  4. No, because the evidence of a prior act is more prejudicial than probative and constitutes impermissible propensity evidence.
Explanation: The correct answer is B. This evidence is not being offered to prove the husband's character for violence in order to show he acted in conformity with it on the night of the killing (a propensity argument). Instead, it is being offered for a crucial non-propensity purpose under FRE 404(b): to show the defendant's state of mind. The prior beating and threat are directly relevant to whether her fear of imminent death or serious bodily injury was reasonable, which is a key element of a self-defense claim. A is incorrect because the proper method to prove the victim's character as the first aggressor would be through reputation or opinion testimony under FRE 405(a), not specific acts. C is incorrect because the evidence is admissible for a non-propensity purpose under 404(b), so the limitations of 405 do not apply. D is incorrect because the evidence is not offered for propensity, and its probative value as to the defendant's state of mind is extremely high, likely outweighing any prejudicial effect.

Question 8

A defendant is on trial for bank robbery. A witness for the prosecution identifies the defendant as the robber. On cross-examination, the defense attorney seeks to impeach the witness by introducing a certified copy of the witness's 12-year-old felony conviction for grand larceny. The prosecution objects.

How is the court most likely to rule on the admissibility of the conviction? Select one.

  1. Admit the evidence, because grand larceny is a crime of dishonesty that is automatically admissible for impeachment.
  2. Admit the evidence, because any felony conviction is admissible to impeach a witness, subject to a balancing test.
  3. Exclude the evidence, unless its probative value in impeaching the witness substantially outweighs its prejudicial effect. (correct answer)
  4. Exclude the evidence, because it is more than 10 years old and the witness is not the defendant.
Explanation: The correct answer is C. FRE 609(b) governs the impeachment use of convictions that are more than 10 years old (measured from the later of the conviction or release from confinement). Such evidence is generally inadmissible. It can be admitted only if (1) its probative value substantially outweighs its prejudicial effect and (2) the proponent gives the adverse party reasonable written notice. This is a very difficult standard to meet. A is incorrect because while some forms of larceny may be considered crimes of dishonesty, not all are, and more importantly, the 10-year rule applies regardless. B is incorrect because it ignores the stricter standard for convictions older than 10 years. D is incorrect because the 10-year rule can be overcome if the strict balancing test is met; it is not an absolute bar.

Question 9

In a medical malpractice trial, the defendant doctor takes the stand. On direct examination, her attorney asks, "Doctor, have you ever had a medical malpractice claim filed against you before?" The doctor answers, "No, never in my 25 years of practice." The plaintiff's attorney has evidence that the doctor was sued for malpractice eight years ago, although the suit was dismissed. The plaintiff's attorney seeks to introduce evidence of the prior lawsuit.

Is the evidence of the prior malpractice lawsuit admissible? Select one.

  1. No, because evidence of prior lawsuits is generally inadmissible character evidence in a civil case.
  2. No, because the prior lawsuit was dismissed and is therefore not probative of the doctor's negligence.
  3. Yes, to show the doctor's habit of providing negligent medical care.
  4. Yes, to impeach the doctor's testimony by contradiction. (correct answer)
Explanation: The correct answer is D. While evidence of prior lawsuits is generally not admissible to prove a propensity for negligence, this situation is different. The doctor, on direct examination, made a specific factual assertion: that she has 'never' been sued. This is a false statement. The opposing party is entitled to impeach her credibility by introducing evidence that directly contradicts this specific testimony. This is known as impeachment by contradiction. The evidence is not being offered to prove she was negligent before, but to prove that she lied on the stand. A states the general rule but misses the impeachment exception. B is incorrect because the truth of the prior claim is irrelevant; what matters is that a lawsuit was filed, contradicting her testimony. C is incorrect as one prior lawsuit does not establish a 'habit' under FRE 406.

Question 10

During a murder trial, the defendant calls a witness who testifies that, in his opinion, the defendant is a peaceful and law-abiding person. On cross-examination, the prosecutor asks the witness, "Are you aware that the defendant was arrested for assault three years ago?" The defense attorney objects to the question.

How should the court rule on the objection? Select one.

  1. Sustain the objection, because an arrest is not a conviction and is therefore not permissible to attack the defendant's character.
  2. Sustain the objection, because the prosecutor is improperly trying to introduce extrinsic evidence of a prior bad act.
  3. Overrule the objection, because the prosecutor may inquire into relevant specific instances of the defendant's conduct on cross-examination of his character witness. (correct answer)
  4. Overrule the objection, because the evidence of the prior arrest is admissible to show the defendant's propensity for violence.
Explanation: When you encounter evidence questions involving prior convictions, you need to distinguish between two different purposes: impeachment of a testifying witness versus proving character or propensity. This distinction is crucial under Federal Rule of Evidence 609. The correct answer is B because prior convictions can only be used to impeach a witness's credibility under Rule 609 when that person actually testifies. Since the defendant hasn't testified and doesn't plan to testify, there's no testimony to impeach. The perjury conviction cannot be introduced for impeachment purposes because the defendant isn't a witness in this case. Here's why the other answers are wrong: A incorrectly applies a balancing test that would only be relevant if the evidence were otherwise admissible, but since the defendant isn't testifying, Rule 609 doesn't even apply. C misunderstands the law by suggesting the conviction is "highly relevant" to fraud charges - while both involve dishonesty, prior convictions generally cannot be used to show propensity to commit similar crimes under Rule 404(b). D incorrectly suggests the prior perjury conviction could prove intent to defraud in the current mail fraud case, but this would violate the character evidence prohibition unless it fits a specific exception, which isn't established here. Key strategy: Always ask yourself whether the defendant is testifying when you see prior conviction questions. If they're not testifying, Rule 609 impeachment is off the table. Remember that prior convictions generally can't be used to show criminal propensity, only to impeach credibility of testifying witnesses.

Question 11

A defendant is on trial for bank robbery. A witness for the prosecution identifies the defendant as the robber. On cross-examination, the defense attorney seeks to impeach the witness by introducing a certified copy of the witness's 12-year-old felony conviction for grand larceny. The prosecution objects.

How is the court most likely to rule on the admissibility of the conviction? Select one.

  1. Admit the evidence, because grand larceny is a crime of dishonesty that is automatically admissible for impeachment.
  2. Admit the evidence, because any felony conviction is admissible to impeach a witness, subject to a balancing test.
  3. Exclude the evidence, unless its probative value in impeaching the witness substantially outweighs its prejudicial effect. (correct answer)
  4. Exclude the evidence, because it is more than 10 years old and the witness is not the defendant.
Explanation: The correct answer is C. FRE 609(b) governs the impeachment use of convictions that are more than 10 years old (measured from the later of the conviction or release from confinement). Such evidence is generally inadmissible. It can be admitted only if (1) its probative value substantially outweighs its prejudicial effect and (2) the proponent gives the adverse party reasonable written notice. This is a very difficult standard to meet. A is incorrect because while some forms of larceny may be considered crimes of dishonesty, not all are, and more importantly, the 10-year rule applies regardless. B is incorrect because it ignores the stricter standard for convictions older than 10 years. D is incorrect because the 10-year rule can be overcome if the strict balancing test is met; it is not an absolute bar.

Question 12

You represent a plaintiff in a breach of contract case. The defendant, a supplier, failed to deliver goods on time. The defendant claims the delay was due to an unforeseeable factory shutdown. At trial, you seek to introduce testimony from three other businesses that in the past year, the same supplier breached their contracts by failing to deliver goods on time, each time blaming an unforeseeable event.

Is this testimony regarding the supplier's other breaches likely to be admitted? Select one.

  1. No, because the supplier's character for untrustworthiness is not admissible in a civil case.
  2. No, because the evidence constitutes impermissible proof of a litigation habit.
  3. Yes, because the evidence is admissible to show the supplier's routine business practice under FRE 406.
  4. Yes, because the evidence is admissible to show absence of mistake or a common plan under FRE 404(b). (correct answer)
Explanation: The correct answer is D. While FRE 404(b) is most often used in criminal cases, it also applies in civil cases. The evidence of prior, similar breaches is not being offered to show the supplier has a bad character and acted in conformity with it. Instead, it is being offered for the non-propensity purpose of showing that the current breach was not an accident or mistake, but part of a common plan or scheme of making excuses for non-performance. This evidence directly refutes the defendant's specific claim of an 'unforeseeable' event. A is incorrect because the evidence is offered for a specific non-propensity purpose, not to prove general character. B is a distractor; 'litigation habit' is not a recognized bar to evidence. C is incorrect because three instances of breaching contracts with different excuses do not rise to the level of a specific, semi-automatic 'routine practice' like mailing a letter every day; it's better analyzed as prior acts showing intent or absence of mistake.

Question 13

A defendant is on trial for mail fraud. The prosecution introduces evidence of the defendant's prior conviction for perjury, which occurred three years ago. The defendant has not yet testified and does not plan to testify. The defendant's attorney objects to the introduction of the perjury conviction.

How should the court rule on the objection? Select one.

  1. Sustain the objection, because the prejudicial effect of the perjury conviction substantially outweighs its probative value.
  2. Sustain the objection, because the conviction can only be used to impeach the defendant if he chooses to testify. (correct answer)
  3. Overrule the objection, because perjury is a crime of dishonesty and is highly relevant to a fraud charge.
  4. Overrule the objection, because the prior conviction is admissible to show the defendant's intent to defraud.
Explanation: When you encounter evidence questions involving prior convictions, you need to distinguish between two different purposes: impeachment of a testifying witness versus proving character or propensity. This distinction is crucial under Federal Rule of Evidence 609. The correct answer is B because prior convictions can only be used to impeach a witness's credibility under Rule 609 when that person actually testifies. Since the defendant hasn't testified and doesn't plan to testify, there's no testimony to impeach. The perjury conviction cannot be introduced for impeachment purposes because the defendant isn't a witness in this case. Here's why the other answers are wrong: A incorrectly applies a balancing test that would only be relevant if the evidence were otherwise admissible, but since the defendant isn't testifying, Rule 609 doesn't even apply. C misunderstands the law by suggesting the conviction is "highly relevant" to fraud charges - while both involve dishonesty, prior convictions generally cannot be used to show propensity to commit similar crimes under Rule 404(b). D incorrectly suggests the prior perjury conviction could prove intent to defraud in the current mail fraud case, but this would violate the character evidence prohibition unless it fits a specific exception, which isn't established here. Key strategy: Always ask yourself whether the defendant is testifying when you see prior conviction questions. If they're not testifying, Rule 609 impeachment is off the table. Remember that prior convictions generally can't be used to show criminal propensity, only to impeach credibility of testifying witnesses.

Question 14

A defendant is being prosecuted for selling counterfeit luxury watches. At trial, the prosecution seeks to introduce a properly authenticated certified copy of the defendant's felony conviction for bank fraud from four years ago. The defendant has already testified and denied any knowledge that the watches were counterfeit. The defendant objects to the admission of the conviction.

Is the prior conviction admissible? Select one.

  1. Yes, because it is a felony conviction less than 10 years old, and its probative value is not substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect.
  2. Yes, because bank fraud is a crime involving a dishonest act, and its admission for impeachment is mandatory. (correct answer)
  3. No, because the prior conviction is not for a similar crime and therefore is not relevant to the current charge.
  4. No, because the defendant did not offer any evidence of his good character for truthfulness.
Explanation: When you encounter evidence questions involving prior convictions, you need to distinguish between two different uses: proving character to show conduct versus impeaching a witness's credibility through truthfulness. Here, the defendant has testified and denied knowledge that the watches were counterfeit, making his truthfulness directly relevant. Under Federal Rule of Evidence 609(a)(2), evidence of a criminal conviction must be admitted for impeachment if the crime involved a dishonest act or false statement, regardless of whether it's a felony or misdemeanor. Bank fraud inherently involves dishonesty and false statements, so the conviction is automatically admissible to attack the defendant's credibility. The court has no discretion to exclude it under this rule. Answer A is incorrect because it applies the wrong rule. While FRE 609(a)(1) does allow felony convictions less than 10 years old subject to a balancing test, that's not the applicable rule here. When a crime involves dishonesty, Rule 609(a)(2) controls and makes admission mandatory. Answer C misunderstands the purpose of the evidence. The conviction isn't being offered to show the defendant's propensity to commit similar crimes, but rather to impeach his credibility as a witness. Similarity to the charged offense is irrelevant for impeachment purposes. Answer D incorrectly suggests the defendant must first present character evidence for truthfulness. Under Rule 609(a)(2), dishonesty convictions are admissible regardless of whether the defendant has offered character evidence. Study tip: Remember that Rule 609(a)(2) crimes involving dishonesty create mandatory admission for impeachment—no balancing test applies.

Question 15

In a criminal assault trial, the defendant testifies that the victim attacked him first and he was only defending himself. To support this, the defense calls a witness who testifies that the victim has a reputation for being a violent person. On rebuttal, the prosecution seeks to call a witness to testify that the defendant has a reputation in his community for being a violent person.

Is the prosecution's rebuttal testimony regarding the defendant's character admissible? Select one.

  1. No, because the prosecution may only rebut by offering evidence of the victim's good character for peacefulness.
  2. No, because the defendant did not offer evidence of his own good character, so he has not opened the door to an attack on his character.
  3. Yes, because once the defendant has attacked the victim's character for a pertinent trait, the prosecution may offer evidence of the defendant's same trait. (correct answer)
  4. Yes, because the defendant's testimony that he acted in self-defense automatically places his character for peacefulness at issue.
Explanation: The correct answer is C. FRE 404(a)(2)(B) allows the prosecution to rebut evidence of the victim's character in two ways. First, it can offer evidence to rebut it (e.g., victim's character for peacefulness). Second, and as is the case here, it can offer evidence of the defendant's same trait. Because the defendant offered evidence that the victim had a violent character, the prosecution is permitted to offer evidence that the defendant also has a violent character. A is incorrect because it states only one of the two rebuttal options available to the prosecution. B is incorrect because the rule specifically allows this form of rebuttal once the defendant attacks the victim's character, regardless of whether the defendant has offered evidence of his own good character. D is incorrect because merely claiming self-defense does not, by itself, place the defendant's character for peacefulness at issue; it is the introduction of evidence of the victim's character that opens the door to this specific type of rebuttal.

Question 16

A plaintiff sued a city bus company after being injured when a bus allegedly ran a red light. The plaintiff's attorney calls a witness who is prepared to testify that he rode the same bus route every morning for a year and saw that specific bus driver run that specific red light 'at least twice a week.' The bus company's attorney objects.

Is the witness's testimony admissible? Select one.

  1. No, because it is improper character evidence used to show the driver acted in conformity with a trait of carelessness.
  2. No, because the witness is not an expert in accident reconstruction and lacks personal knowledge of the accident in question.
  3. Yes, because it is evidence of the driver's habit of running the red light at that intersection. (correct answer)
  4. Yes, because it is evidence of a common plan or scheme by the driver under FRE 404(b).
Explanation: The correct answer is C. Under FRE 406, evidence of a person's habit or an organization's routine practice may be admitted to prove that on a particular occasion the person or organization acted in accordance with the habit or routine practice. Habit is a person's regular response to a repeated specific situation. The testimony describes a specific action (running a specific red light) that is repeated frequently and regularly, rising to the level of a semi-automatic habit. This is distinguishable from general character for carelessness. A is incorrect because the specificity and regularity of the conduct elevate it from character to habit. B is incorrect because the witness is testifying about his own personal observations of prior events, not the accident itself, which is permissible. D is incorrect because FRE 404(b) is generally used to show things like motive or intent, not the habitual nature of a physical action like running a light.

Question 17

In a federal fraud trial, the defendant is accused of orchestrating a complex scheme involving falsified investment documents. The defendant takes the stand and testifies in his own defense. On cross-examination, the prosecutor asks, "Isn't it true that you were fired from your previous accounting job for embezzling funds, even though you were never criminally charged?" The defendant's attorney objects.

Is the prosecutor's question permissible? Select one.

  1. Yes, because the act of embezzlement is probative of the defendant's character for untruthfulness. (correct answer)
  2. Yes, because evidence of prior bad acts is admissible to show a common scheme or plan under FRE 404(b).
  3. No, because extrinsic evidence is not admissible to prove specific instances of a witness's conduct to attack their character for truthfulness.
  4. No, because the defendant has not opened the door by offering evidence of his good character for truthfulness.
Explanation: The correct answer is A. When a defendant chooses to testify, he places his credibility at issue, just like any other witness. Under FRE 608(b), on cross-examination of a witness, the court may allow an inquiry into specific instances of conduct if they are probative of the character for truthfulness or untruthfulness of the witness. Embezzlement is an act of dishonesty and is therefore highly probative of the defendant's character for untruthfulness. B is incorrect because the question is being used for impeachment, not as substantive evidence under 404(b). C is incorrect because the prosecutor is merely asking a question on cross-examination, not introducing extrinsic evidence (like a termination letter). The prosecutor is bound by the defendant's answer. D is incorrect because by taking the stand, the defendant's character for truthfulness is automatically at issue, and he does not need to offer evidence of good character to 'open the door' to this type of impeachment.

Question 18

In a criminal assault trial, the defendant testifies that the victim attacked him first and he was only defending himself. To support this, the defense calls a witness who testifies that the victim has a reputation for being a violent person. On rebuttal, the prosecution seeks to call a witness to testify that the defendant has a reputation in his community for being a violent person.

Is the prosecution's rebuttal testimony regarding the defendant's character admissible? Select one.

  1. No, because the prosecution may only rebut by offering evidence of the victim's good character for peacefulness.
  2. No, because the defendant did not offer evidence of his own good character, so he has not opened the door to an attack on his character.
  3. Yes, because once the defendant has attacked the victim's character for a pertinent trait, the prosecution may offer evidence of the defendant's same trait. (correct answer)
  4. Yes, because the defendant's testimony that he acted in self-defense automatically places his character for peacefulness at issue.
Explanation: The correct answer is C. FRE 404(a)(2)(B) allows the prosecution to rebut evidence of the victim's character in two ways. First, it can offer evidence to rebut it (e.g., victim's character for peacefulness). Second, and as is the case here, it can offer evidence of the defendant's same trait. Because the defendant offered evidence that the victim had a violent character, the prosecution is permitted to offer evidence that the defendant also has a violent character. A is incorrect because it states only one of the two rebuttal options available to the prosecution. B is incorrect because the rule specifically allows this form of rebuttal once the defendant attacks the victim's character, regardless of whether the defendant has offered evidence of his own good character. D is incorrect because merely claiming self-defense does not, by itself, place the defendant's character for peacefulness at issue; it is the introduction of evidence of the victim's character that opens the door to this specific type of rebuttal.

Question 19

A woman is on trial for the murder of her husband. She claims that she killed him in self-defense after years of abuse. To support her claim, she seeks to testify about a specific incident one month before the killing, where her husband, in a drunken rage, beat her severely and threatened to kill her.

Is the woman's testimony about this prior incident of abuse admissible? Select one.

  1. Yes, to show the husband's violent character and that he was the first aggressor.
  2. Yes, to show the defendant's state of mind and the reasonableness of her belief that she was in imminent danger. (correct answer)
  3. No, because specific acts of a victim are not admissible unless character is an essential element of the defense.
  4. No, because the evidence of a prior act is more prejudicial than probative and constitutes impermissible propensity evidence.
Explanation: The correct answer is B. This evidence is not being offered to prove the husband's character for violence in order to show he acted in conformity with it on the night of the killing (a propensity argument). Instead, it is being offered for a crucial non-propensity purpose under FRE 404(b): to show the defendant's state of mind. The prior beating and threat are directly relevant to whether her fear of imminent death or serious bodily injury was reasonable, which is a key element of a self-defense claim. A is incorrect because the proper method to prove the victim's character as the first aggressor would be through reputation or opinion testimony under FRE 405(a), not specific acts. C is incorrect because the evidence is admissible for a non-propensity purpose under 404(b), so the limitations of 405 do not apply. D is incorrect because the evidence is not offered for propensity, and its probative value as to the defendant's state of mind is extremely high, likely outweighing any prejudicial effect.

Question 20

A defendant was on trial for battery, allegedly committed during a bar fight. The defendant claims self-defense, asserting that the victim was the first aggressor. To support this claim, the defense calls a witness to testify that the victim has a reputation in the community for being a violent and quarrelsome person. The prosecution objects.

How should the court rule on the prosecution's objection? Select one.

  1. Sustain the objection, because character evidence is not admissible in a civil case to prove action in conformity therewith.
  2. Sustain the objection, because the defendant may only offer evidence of his own pertinent character trait for peacefulness, not the victim's.
  3. Overrule the objection, because a criminal defendant may offer reputation or opinion evidence of a victim's pertinent character trait. (correct answer)
  4. Overrule the objection, but only if the defendant first testifies and places his own character at issue.
Explanation: The correct answer is C. Under FRE 404(a)(2)(B), a defendant in a criminal case may offer evidence of an alleged victim's pertinent trait. In a battery case where self-defense is claimed, the victim's character for violence is a pertinent trait. FRE 405(a) permits this to be proven by reputation or opinion testimony. Therefore, the witness's testimony about the victim's reputation for violence is admissible. A is incorrect because this is a criminal case (battery), not a civil case. B is incorrect because the rules explicitly allow a defendant to offer evidence of the victim's pertinent character trait. D is incorrect because the defendant's right to introduce evidence of the victim's character is not conditioned on the defendant testifying or putting their own character at issue first.