Also known as: FRE 404 · Fed. R. Evid. 404 · Federal Rule of Evidence 404 · Rule 404 · Rule 404(b) · 404(b) · character evidence rule
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A rule of evidence generally barring the admission of a person's character or prior acts to prove action in conformity with that character on a particular occasion, while allowing such evidence when offered for a non-propensity purpose such as motive, intent, or identity.
Prosecutors charged Frank Fisher with selling stolen electronics. They offered testimony that Fisher had previously handled similar goods reported missing from another warehouse. The court admitted the evidence after finding enough proof for the jury to conclude Fisher committed the prior act and that its value on intent outweighed prejudice.
Federal prosecutors charged a defendant with distributing videos of animal fights. The defense argued the statute violated the First Amendment. The court examined whether the videos qualified as protected speech or fell outside constitutional safeguards.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Felicia Fuentes faced trial for possessing a firearm as a felon. She offered to stipulate to her prior conviction. The prosecutor sought to introduce the full record of her earlier robbery. The court limited the evidence to the bare fact of conviction to avoid undue prejudice.
Forrest Falconer stood trial for distributing narcotics. The government introduced evidence of his earlier sales to the same buyer. The court admitted the acts to show knowledge and intent after balancing their relevance against any risk of unfair inference.
Felipe Figueroa was tried for robbery. The prosecution offered proof of an earlier home invasion for which he had been acquitted. The court evaluated whether the evidence could still support a non-propensity purpose without violating double jeopardy principles.
Farid Farahani testified in his own defense at a fraud trial. The prosecutor then sought to introduce his prior conviction for similar dishonesty. The court permitted the evidence because the defendant had opened the door by taking the stand.
Once the defendant introduces evidence of an alleged victim's pertinent trait such as peacefulness or aggressiveness, the prosecutor may offer evidence of the defendant's same trait to rebut it. This exception applies only after the defendant opens the door and remains subject to Rule 403 balancing.
Supporting sources
No. Rule 404(a)(3) expressly permits evidence of a witness's character for truthfulness or untruthfulness under Rules 607, 608, and 609. Reputation testimony about a witness's character for untruthfulness is therefore admissible for impeachment even though it would be barred if offered for propensity.
Supporting sources
No. Rule 404(a)(1) prohibits character evidence to prove conduct in conformity with a trait in civil cases. The narrow exceptions allowing a criminal defendant to introduce pertinent character evidence do not apply to civil battery actions.
Supporting sources
The trial court need not find by a preponderance that the defendant committed the prior act. The evidence is admissible if the jury could reasonably conclude the act occurred and if its probative value on a non-propensity issue is not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice under Rule 403.
Supporting sources
…factor." Advisory Committee's Notes on Fed. Rule Evid. 403, 28 U. S. C. App., p. 860. The point gets a reprise in the Notes to Rule 404(b), dealing with admissibility when a given evidentiary item has the dual nature of legitimate evidence of an element and illegitimate evidence of character: "No mechanical solution is…