Bar Exam (Next Generation) Quiz: Character And Related Concepts
12 questions · exam conditions
0:00
Character And Related ConceptsQuestion 1 of 12

Damon is charged with murder. Damon testifies in his own defense that the victim pulled a knife and lunged at him first, and that he shot the victim in self-defense. The prosecution then calls a witness to testify that the victim was known in the community as a peaceful, nonviolent person. Damon objects, arguing that the prosecution is offering character evidence and that he never introduced character evidence about the victim.

Should the court admit the witness's testimony?

No, because Damon's testimony about the victim's conduct is not evidence of the victim's character and therefore does not open the door.
No, because the victim's peacefulness is not a pertinent trait when the defendant claims self-defense in a homicide case.
Yes, because the prosecution may offer evidence of a homicide victim's peacefulness to rebut evidence that the victim was the first aggressor.
Yes, because the prosecution may always introduce evidence of a homicide victim's peaceful character in its case-in-chief.
← Back to quizzes

Bar Exam (Next Generation) Quiz

Bar Exam (Next Generation) Quiz: Character And Related Concepts

Practice Character And Related Concepts in Bar Exam (Next Generation) 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 And Related Concepts, giving you a quick way to practice the rules, question types, and explanations that matter most for Bar Exam (Next Generation).

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

Damon is charged with murder. Damon testifies in his own defense that the victim pulled a knife and lunged at him first, and that he shot the victim in self-defense. The prosecution then calls a witness to testify that the victim was known in the community as a peaceful, nonviolent person. Damon objects, arguing that the prosecution is offering character evidence and that he never introduced character evidence about the victim.

Should the court admit the witness's testimony?

  1. No, because Damon's testimony about the victim's conduct is not evidence of the victim's character and therefore does not open the door.
  2. No, because the victim's peacefulness is not a pertinent trait when the defendant claims self-defense in a homicide case.
  3. Yes, because the prosecution may offer evidence of a homicide victim's peacefulness to rebut evidence that the victim was the first aggressor. (correct answer)
  4. Yes, because the prosecution may always introduce evidence of a homicide victim's peaceful character in its case-in-chief.
Explanation: Whenever you see character evidence in a self-defense case, remember the door-opening logic: a criminal defendant who claims the victim was the first aggressor puts the victim's character in issue. Under the rules of evidence, the defendant may offer evidence of the victim's pertinent character trait, and the prosecution may then rebut with evidence of the victim's opposite trait. Here, Damon testified that the victim pulled a knife and lunged first. Although that is testimony about specific conduct rather than a character opinion, it plainly asserts that the victim was the aggressor. Once Damon opens that door, the prosecution may offer the victim's reputation for peacefulness to rebut the claim. So the testimony should be admitted. The choice saying no because Damon's testimony is not evidence of the victim's character misses the point: the claim of self-defense, not formal character evidence, triggers the rebuttal. The choice saying peacefulness is not a pertinent trait is wrong because whether the victim was the aggressor is exactly the pertinent issue in a homicide self-defense case. The choice saying the prosecution may always introduce peaceful character evidence in its case-in-chief is too broad; absent the defendant opening the door, such evidence would be inadmissible character evidence. Study tip: a defendant's narrative can open the door to character rebuttal even if no formal character witness was called—watch for the underlying claim, not just the label "character evidence."

Question 2

In a federal prosecution for mail fraud, the government intends to offer evidence that the defendant previously ran a similar fraudulent investment scheme, to prove intent and absence of mistake. The defendant made a pretrial request for notice of other-act evidence. The prosecutor did not give the defendant notice before trial, but told defense counsel about the evidence three days before offering it at trial, explaining that the prosecutor had learned of the prior scheme only two weeks earlier, after the pretrial motions deadline. The defendant moves to exclude the evidence solely because the notice was late.

How should the court rule on the motion?

  1. Grant the motion, because Rule 404(b) requires the prosecutor to give pretrial notice and a late notice requires exclusion.
  2. Grant the motion, because the notice requirement applies to prior uncharged acts but not to evidence of other crimes or convictions.
  3. Deny the motion, because the notice requirement is a discovery courtesy and a violation has no remedy.
  4. Deny the motion, if the court finds good cause for the late notice and the defendant has an adequate opportunity to respond. (correct answer)
Explanation: Whenever you see a Rule 404(b) notice issue, separate the two big questions: first, is the other-act evidence substantively admissible for a permitted purpose like intent or absence of mistake? Second, did the prosecution satisfy the notice requirement? Here the substantive purpose is permissible, so the only real issue is timing. Under Rule 404(b)(3), after a defendant asks for notice, the prosecution must give reasonable pretrial notice of other crimes, wrongs, or acts it intends to offer. But that requirement is not an automatic exclusionary trap: if the prosecution failed to give pretrial notice, the court may allow the evidence anyway upon a finding of good cause. That happens when the prosecutor only recently learned of the prior scheme and disclosed it as soon as practicable—here, two weeks before trial and after the pretrial motions deadline—provided the defense still has an adequate opportunity to investigate and respond, possibly through a continuance. Therefore the court should deny the motion if it finds good cause and an adequate opportunity to respond. The choice saying late notice always requires exclusion treats the notice rule as rigid; actually good cause can excuse lateness. The choice saying the notice requirement covers only prior uncharged acts, not other crimes or convictions, misreads the rule: 404(b) covers all other crimes, wrongs, and acts, including prior crimes. And the choice calling the notice requirement a mere discovery courtesy with no remedy understates it: the rule is an evidentiary safeguard, and a violation can be remedied by exclusion, a continuance, or other relief. The correct answer is the conditional denial: the court may deny exclusion if good cause exists and the defendant can fairly meet the evidence. . Study tip: whenever you see a late 404(b) notice issue, ask two things—why was it late, and can the defense still respond? If both favor admitting, the judge should deny exclusion.

Question 3

In a civil suit alleging that Mark sexually assaulted a co-worker, the plaintiff offers evidence that Mark was convicted four years earlier of attempted sexual assault, a felony under state law, after he tried to force a woman into his car. Mark objects, arguing that the prior conviction is inadmissible propensity evidence and, in any event, an attempt is not a completed sexual assault.

Is the plaintiff's evidence admissible?

  1. No, because Rule 413's exception to the propensity ban applies only in criminal prosecutions and only to completed sexual assaults.
  2. Yes, because Rule 415 extends the similar-crimes rule to civil sexual-assault cases, and attempted sexual assault qualifies as an offense of sexual assault. (correct answer)
  3. Yes, but only if the prior conviction is used for impeachment and Mark testifies at trial.
  4. No, because evidence of a defendant's other sexual assaults is admissible only when the alleged victim is a child.
Explanation: Whenever you see a prior-bad-acts question involving sexual assault, your first move is to check whether Rule 404(b)'s general ban on propensity evidence has been displaced by Rules 413–415. Those rules create a special exception: in a criminal sexual-assault case, evidence of other sexual assaults is admissible for any relevant purpose, including propensity. Here, the plaintiff's evidence is admissible because Rule 415 expressly applies the similar-crimes rule to civil cases involving sexual assault. The prior conviction qualifies: "offense of sexual assault" under Rule 413(d) includes attempted sexual assault, not just completed assaults. Mark's conviction for attempted sexual assault therefore fits the definition, and the evidence may be used substantively to show propensity. The first wrong answer claims Rule 413 applies only in criminal prosecutions and only to completed sexual assaults. That misses Rule 415's civil-case extension and the rule's explicit inclusion of attempts. The third answer says the prior conviction is admissible only for impeachment if Mark testifies. That is too narrow—Rule 415 permits substantive propensity use even if Mark never takes the stand. The fourth answer limits admissibility to child victims, but Rules 413–415 apply to adult victims as well. Your study tip: when you see sexual-assault evidence, remember "criminal or civil, attempt counts." Rules 413–415 override the propensity ban broadly, and "attempt" is expressly included.

Question 4

Leo is charged with possession of cocaine with intent to distribute. In its case-in-chief, the government offers evidence that two years earlier Leo sold cocaine to an undercover officer, to prove that Leo intended to distribute the cocaine found in his apartment. Leo objects, arguing that the prior sale shows only his propensity to deal drugs and that he has not placed his intent in issue.

Should the court admit the prior-sale evidence?

  1. No, because evidence of a prior crime that merely shows a propensity to commit the charged crime is inadmissible.
  2. Yes, because the prior sale is admissible to prove intent, an element of the offense, and the government need not wait for Leo to put intent in issue. (correct answer)
  3. Yes, but only if Leo first testifies or presents other evidence contesting intent at trial.
  4. No, because the prior sale may be used only to impeach Leo if he testifies at trial.
Explanation: Whenever you see evidence of a defendant's prior bad act, think Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b): it cannot be admitted merely to show propensity, but it can be admitted to prove something like intent, plan, knowledge, or absence of mistake. Here, intent is an element of possession with intent to distribute, so the government may prove it in its case-in-chief—it does not need to wait for Leo to put intent at issue. The prior sale to an undercover officer is relevant to show that Leo knew the cocaine in his apartment was for distribution, not just that he has a drug-dealing character. So the court should admit it, subject to Rule 403 balancing. The first wrong answer—"No, because evidence of a prior crime that merely shows propensity is inadmissible"—states a true general rule but ignores that the sale is offered for the permissible purpose of proving intent. The answer saying "Yes, but only if Leo first testifies or presents other evidence contesting intent" confuses 404(b) with impeachment or door-opening; the prosecution carries the burden and may present affirmative proof of every element. Finally, the answer saying the prior sale may be used only to impeach Leo if he testifies is wrong because the evidence is substantive, not limited to cross-examination. Study tip: when a prior bad act appears, ask, "What material issue does it prove?" If the answer is intent or knowledge, it is likely admissible—and never wait for the defendant to open the door.

Question 5

Parker sued a newspaper for defamation after it published an article calling him a thief. The newspaper's defense is that the statement is true. At trial, the newspaper offers testimony from two former employers that Parker took money from them on specific occasions. Parker objects, arguing that the newspaper may prove his character, if at all, only through reputation or opinion testimony.

Should the court admit the former employers' testimony?

  1. No, because a person's character may be proved only by reputation or opinion testimony.
  2. No, because character evidence is not admissible in civil cases to prove a person's conduct.
  3. Yes, because truth in defamation puts the plaintiff's honesty directly in issue, so specific instances of his conduct are admissible. (correct answer)
  4. Yes, but only if the former employers also testify about Parker's reputation in the community.
Explanation: Whenever you see character evidence in a civil case, don't assume the general ban applies. Ask first whether character is itself an element of the claim or defense. In defamation, when the defendant pleads truth, the plaintiff's honesty is directly in issue: the newspaper is not using prior bad acts as circumstantial proof of conduct, but as proof that the allegedly defamatory statement was true. Under the rules, when character is an essential element of a claim or defense, it may be proved by specific instances of conduct, not just reputation or opinion. So the former employers' testimony about specific times Parker took money is admissible. The objection that character may be proved only by reputation or opinion states the default rule for proving character as circumstantial evidence of action, but it misses the essential-element exception. Similarly, the claim that character evidence is never admissible in civil cases to prove conduct is too absolute—it is admissible when character is directly in issue, as in defamation. And the idea that the employers must also testify about Parker's reputation adds a requirement the rules do not impose; specific instances are enough when character is an element. Study tip: on evidence questions, first classify whether character evidence is offered as circumstantial proof of conduct or as an element of the case. That distinction controls the allowable form.

Question 6

In a prosecution for bank robbery, the government offers evidence that the defendant committed an uncharged bank robbery two years earlier using the same distinctive method, to prove identity through modus operandi. The defendant denies committing the prior robbery and offers testimony that he was out of state when it occurred. At a hearing outside the jury's presence, the court must decide whether the jury may consider the prior-robbery evidence.

By what standard should the court make that decision?

  1. The court must decide whether a reasonable jury could find by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant committed the prior robbery. (correct answer)
  2. The court must find by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant committed the prior robbery.
  3. The court must find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the prior robbery.
  4. The court must exclude the prior robbery unless the defendant was convicted of that offense.
Explanation: Whenever you see evidence of an uncharged crime offered to prove identity through modus operandi, think about admissibility gates: the evidence must be relevant for a non-character purpose, and its relevance depends on whether the defendant actually committed the prior act. That dependency triggers Rule 104(b) conditional relevance, not the higher standards for criminal conviction. Under the Supreme Court's decision in Huddleston v. United States, the judge's role is limited: the court should admit the prior-robbery evidence if a reasonable jury could find by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant committed that prior robbery. The jury then decides what weight to give it, and the defendant remains free to argue he was out of state. The "clear and convincing evidence" choice is a trap: that higher standard applies to certain constitutional or statutory findings, not to conditional-relevance facts under Rule 104(b). Similarly, "beyond a reasonable doubt" is the standard for criminal guilt, not for preliminary evidentiary facts—applying it here would wrongly turn the judge into the ultimate factfinder. And the "unless convicted" choice is also wrong: a prior conviction is one way to prove a prior act, but it is not required; uncharged conduct can be proved by witness testimony, documents, or other evidence. The key lesson: when evidence is relevant only if a fact exists, ask whether the jury could reasonably find that fact by a preponderance. If yes, admit and let the jury decide.

Question 7

In a federal civil action, the plaintiff alleges that the defendant sexually assaulted her. The plaintiff offers a certified judgment showing that the defendant was convicted 12 years ago of sexually assaulting another person. The defendant does not dispute the authenticity of the judgment, but objects that the evidence is inadmissible character evidence because it would prove only that he has a propensity to commit sexual assault.

Should the court admit the certified judgment?

  1. Yes, because the rules governing sexual-assault cases allow evidence of other sexual assaults in a civil case alleging sexual assault, subject to Rule 403 balancing. (correct answer)
  2. No, because a conviction more than ten years old may not be used to impeach a witness.
  3. No, because Rule 404(a) prohibits evidence of a person's character to prove action in conformity in a civil case.
  4. Yes, because a prior conviction may always be used to impeach the credibility of a party.
Explanation: Whenever you see a prior conviction or bad act offered in a civil case alleging sexual assault, think of the specific federal rules that create an exception to the general ban on character evidence. The general rule is that Rule 404(a) prohibits using prior acts to show propensity, but Rules 413–415 carve out special exceptions for sexual assault and child molestation. Specifically, Rule 415 allows evidence of other sexual assaults in a civil case alleging sexual assault to prove propensity, subject to Rule 403 balancing. Here, the certified judgment is offered as substantive evidence of the defendant's propensity, not to impeach his credibility. Therefore, the court should admit it because the rules governing sexual-assault cases allow such evidence. Now examine the incorrect choices. The claim that a conviction more than ten years old may not be used to impeach a witness is a trap—that limit applies to Rule 609 impeachment, not to substantive evidence under Rule 415. The argument that Rule 404(a) prohibits character evidence in a civil case is wrong because Rule 415 is a specific exception to that general prohibition. Finally, the statement that a prior conviction may always be used to impeach a party's credibility is false, as Rule 609 has specific limits (including the ten-year cap), and the evidence here is offered for propensity, not credibility. Study tip: When you see sexual assault, remember the special rules (413/414/415) – they allow propensity evidence in both criminal and civil cases, but always subject to Rule 403. Distinguish this from Rule 609 impeachment, which has a ten-year limit.

Question 8

At Devin's trial for assault, Devin calls Lena, who has lived next door to Devin for fifteen years, to testify that Devin has an excellent reputation for peacefulness in the neighborhood. On cross-examination, the prosecutor asks Lena, 'Do you know that Devin was arrested for hitting a man in a bar fight two years ago?' Devin's counsel objects.

Is the prosecutor's question proper?

  1. Yes, because a character witness may be cross-examined about any specific instances of the defendant's conduct that are relevant to the character trait.
  2. No, because an arrest that did not result in a conviction may never be used to question a character witness.
  3. No, but the prosecutor may ask whether Lena has heard of the arrest, a relevant specific instance if asked in good faith. (correct answer)
  4. Yes, because the prosecutor may prove the arrest by extrinsic evidence if Lena denies knowing about it.
Explanation: When you see a character witness question, remember the distinction between reputation and opinion witnesses. A reputation witness like Lena may be cross-examined to test the basis of her claimed knowledge of neighborhood reputation, but the proper format is "have you heard"—not "do you know." The prosecutor's question is improper because asking "Do you know that Devin was arrested" treats the arrest as established fact, not as something Lena may have heard in the community. The correct approach is to ask whether Lena has heard of the arrest, assuming the prosecutor has a good-faith basis that this incident was relevant to peacefulness and was talked about. This tests Lena's credibility and the reliability of her reputation testimony without injecting collateral conduct as evidence. The "any specific instances" choice is too broad: cross-examination is limited to instances relevant to the character trait and asked in good faith, and for a reputation witness the question must be "have you heard." The "arrest never used" choice is wrong because an arrest without conviction may be raised on cross of a character witness as a heard-of incident, even though it could not be used as substantive evidence of character. The "extrinsic evidence" choice is wrong: if Lena denies having heard, the prosecutor must accept the answer; the arrest cannot be independently proved. On exam, flag character-witness cross questions: "have you heard" is okay, "do you know" is wrong for reputation witnesses, and no extrinsic evidence is allowed.

Question 9

In a prosecution for rape, the defendant's defense is consent. The defendant wants to introduce evidence that he and the alleged victim had consensual sexual intercourse on three prior occasions during the same year, under circumstances similar to those alleged in the indictment. The prosecution objects under Rule 412.

Should the court admit the evidence?

  1. No, because Rule 412 bars all evidence of an alleged victim's prior sexual conduct except evidence offered to prove the source of semen or injury.
  2. Yes, because Rule 412 does not apply to evidence of prior sexual conduct between the alleged victim and the accused.
  3. No, because prior acts with the accused go only to his state of mind, not to whether the victim consented on this occasion.
  4. Yes, because Rule 412 permits evidence of the victim's prior sexual behavior with the accused when offered by the defendant to prove consent. (correct answer)
Explanation: When you see a question about Rule 412, the rape shield law, remember that the default is to exclude evidence of a victim's prior sexual conduct—but there are narrow exceptions. The key is to know those exceptions cold. Here, the defendant claims consent and wants to introduce prior consensual acts with the same victim. Rule 412(b)(1)(B) expressly allows evidence of specific instances of the victim's sexual behavior with the accused if offered to prove consent. Because the defendant is not offering this evidence to attack the victim's character but to show a pattern or history that makes consent plausible in this instance, it falls squarely within that exception. The court should admit it. Now look at the wrong answers. The first says Rule 412 bars all evidence except to prove source of semen or injury—that's too restrictive; it ignores the consent exception for prior acts with the accused. The second says Rule 412 doesn't apply to prior conduct between the victim and the accused—that's false; the rule applies, but the exception makes it admissible. The third claims prior acts only go to the defendant's state of mind, not the victim's consent—that's a misconception; the evidence is directly relevant to whether the victim consented on this occasion, because it suggests a consensual pattern. Your takeaway: When a 412 question appears, immediately scan for two exceptions—(1) evidence of prior sexual behavior with the accused offered to prove consent, and (2) evidence offered to prove the source of semen or injury. If either fits, the evidence comes in.

Question 10

Devon is charged with wire fraud for operating a scheme that induced elderly victims to invest in a nonexistent gold mine. Devon calls his longtime friend, Nina, to testify that Devon has a reputation in their community as a peaceful, nonviolent person who would never hurt anyone. The prosecution objects.

Should the court admit Nina's testimony?

  1. No, because peacefulness is not a pertinent character trait and has no bearing on a charge of wire fraud. (correct answer)
  2. Yes, because a criminal defendant may introduce evidence of any good character trait to raise a reasonable doubt.
  3. Yes, because peacefulness supports Devon's credibility as a witness and makes it less likely he lied to investors.
  4. No, because reputation testimony is not a permissible way to prove a criminal defendant's character.
Explanation: Whenever you see a character-evidence question, focus on two things: the particular trait being offered and whether it is "pertinent" to the crime charged. Under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(a)(2)(A), a criminal defendant may introduce reputation or opinion evidence about a pertinent character trait—but not any trait he chooses.Sarah? The court should exclude Nina's testimony. Peacefulness-and-nonviolence is simply not pertinent to wire fraud, a crime centered on dishonesty and deceit. The pertinent character trait for fraud would be honesty or truthfulness, not peacefulness. Nina's reputation testimony therefore has no tendency to make it less likely that Devon intended to deceive investors, so it fails relevance and Rule 404 pertinence. Choice B—"a defendant may introduce evidence of any good character trait"—is too broad: the rule limits admissible character evidence to pertinent traits, not all virtuous qualities. Choice C—"peacefulness supports credibility and makes it less likely he lied"—conflates two different rules: characterize evidence offered for substantive guilt under Rule 404, not credibility under Rule 608; moreover, peacefulness does not go to truthfulness, so it would not support credibility even if Devon testified. Choice D—"reputation testimony is not a permissible way"—misstates the law: reputation (and opinion) testimony is an express permitted method under Rule 405(a) criminal character case; it is the specificity of whatever instances that are usually barred. So the objection is sustained because the offered trait misses the mark entirely. Study tip: when you see character evidence, ask yourself: What exact trait is offered? Is that trait pertinent to this offense? If the charge is fraud, think honesty; if violence, think peacefulness. Match the trait to the crime—that's the whole game.

Question 11

Pedro was injured when his car was struck by a delivery van driven by Una. Pedro claims Una ran a stop sign at the intersection. Pedro offers the following evidence to prove how Una drove at the intersection.

Which evidence is admissible for that purpose?

  1. Testimony from Una's supervisor that Una is an extremely careful driver who has won safe-driver awards.
  2. Testimony from a co-worker that Una always checks for cross-traffic and applies her brakes at every stop sign she approaches, without exception. (correct answer)
  3. Testimony from a neighbor that on three prior occasions he saw Una run a stop sign at a different intersection.
  4. Testimony from a friend that Una has a reputation in her community as a cautious, careful driver.
Explanation: Whenever you see a question about proving how a party acted on a specific occasion, immediately distinguish between character evidence (propensity) and habit evidence. Character evidence—like "she's careful"—is inadmissible in civil cases to prove conduct. But a habit is a specific, regular response to a specific situation, and it is admissible to show a person acted consistently with that habit on the occasion in question. Here, the co-worker's testimony that Una "always checks for cross-traffic and applies her brakes at every stop sign" fits habit perfectly: it pairs a specific trigger (approaching a stop sign) with a specific, automatic response (checking and braking). This allows the inference that Una did the same at the intersection in question. Now examine the traps. The supervisor's testimony that Una is an "extremely careful driver" is classic character evidence—a broad trait, not a habit, and it's barred to prove conduct. The neighbor's testimony about three prior occasions at a different intersection is prior specific acts offered to show propensity, which is also inadmissible in a civil case. Finally, the friend's testimony about Una's "reputation" as cautious is character evidence via reputation, likewise barred. Study tip: The key difference is specificity. Habit is narrow and situational ("always stops at the stop sign"), while character is broad and global ("is a safe person"). On the exam, look for the answer choice that couples a precise stimulus with a consistent, reflexive response.

Question 12

At a federal criminal trial for aggravated assault, the defendant claims self-defense. He seeks to testify that, several months before the incident, he personally saw the victim beat another person unconscious, and that this memory caused him to fear the victim. The prosecutor objects that this is improper character evidence.

Should the court admit the defendant's testimony?

  1. No, because a defendant may not use specific instances of a victim's prior misconduct to prove the victim's violent character.
  2. No, because specific instances of a victim's prior misconduct are admissible only to impeach a character witness after reputation or opinion evidence has been given.
  3. Yes, because specific instances of a victim's prior misconduct are permitted to prove the victim's violent character when self-defense is asserted.
  4. Yes, because the testimony is offered to show the defendant's reasonable fear, not to prove that the victim acted in conformity with a violent character. (correct answer)
Explanation: This testimony should be admitted. Whenever you see a victim's prior bad act in a self-defense case, separate the purpose: is it offered to prove the victim acted in conformity, or to prove the defendant's state of mind? Here, the defendant personally saw the victim beat someone unconscious, and that memory caused him to fear the victim. That is not character evidence used to prove the victim was the aggressor; it is circumstantial evidence of the defendant's actual, reasonable fear. Under FRE 404(b), prior acts may be admissible for a non-character purpose such as knowledge, motive, or state of mind. So the court should admit it. The first wrong answer—saying no because a defendant may not use specific instances of prior misconduct to prove the victim's violent character—states a general rule but misses that this testimony is not offered to prove the victim acted violently on this occasion. The second wrong answer, saying specific instances are admissible only to impeach a character witness after reputation or opinion evidence, describes Rule 405(a) but is not the exclusive route and ignores the defendant's personal knowledge. The third wrong answer says yes because specific instances are permitted to prove the victim's violent character in self-defense; that is too broad, since specific acts generally are not allowed for pure propensity—reputation or opinion evidence would be the usual vehicle. Study tip: when character evidence appears, ask "what is the logical relevance?" A non-propensity purpose like fear, intent, or notice can make the evidence admissible.