Rule 404 Character Evidence; Crimes or Other Acts
Rule Text
(a) Character Evidence.
(1) Prohibited Uses. Evidence of a person’s character or character trait is not admissible to prove that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character or trait.
(2) Exceptions for a Defendant or Victim in a Criminal Case. The following exceptions apply in a criminal case:
(A) a defendant may offer evidence of the defendant’s pertinent trait, and if the evidence is admitted, the prosecutor may offer evidence to rebut it;
(B) subject to the limitations in Rule 412, a defendant may offer evidence of an alleged victim’s pertinent trait, and if the evidence is admitted, the prosecutor may:
(i) offer evidence to rebut it; and
(ii) offer evidence of the defendant’s same trait; and
(C) in a homicide case, the prosecutor may offer evidence of the alleged victim’s trait of peacefulness to rebut evidence that the victim was the first aggressor.
(3) Exceptions for a Witness. Evidence of a witness’s character may be admitted under Rules 607, 608, and 609.
(b) Crimes, Wrongs, or Other Acts.
(1) Prohibited Uses. Evidence of a crime, wrong, or other act is not admissible to prove a person’s character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character.
(2) Permitted Uses; Notice in a Criminal Case. Evidence of a crime, wrong, or other act may be admissible for other purposes, such as addressing issues, if actually contested in the case, concerning motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident – provided that the probative value of such proof, supported by specific facts and circumstances, substantially outweighs its prejudicial effect. On request by a defendant in a criminal case, the prosecutor must:
(A) provide reasonable notice of the general nature of any such evidence that the prosecutor intends to offer at trial; and
(B) do so before trial — or during trial if the court, for good cause, excuses lack of pretrial notice.
See James v. People, 59 V.I. 866 (V.I. 2013); Morton v. People, 59 V.I. 660 (V.I. 2013); Tyson v. People, 59 V.I. 391 (V.I. 2013); Christopher v. People, 57 V.I. 500 (V.I. 2012); Prosser v. Public Servs. Comm'n,, 56 V.I. 391 (V.I. 2012); Carty v. People, 56 V.I. 345 (V.I. 2012); Chinnery v. People, 55 V.I. 508 (V.I. 2011); Brown v. People, 54 V.I. 496 (V.I. 2010). The Advisory Committees adapted FRE 404(b)(2) by clarifying that prior "bad acts" impeachment is subject to exclusion where its prejudicial impact is not outweighed by any probative value of the prior act, and by noting that the identified "issue" to be addressed by prior bad acts proof must be one that is actually contested in the case – otherwise there is no justification for introducing prior actions unrelated to the crime being tried. The balance adopted here is the "reverse Rule 403" balance found in Rule 609—requiring that the probative value must exceed prejudice in order to allow use of the prior act proof.