Also known as: Federal Rule of Evidence 404 · FRE 404 · Rule 404 · Rule 404(b) · character evidence rule
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A federal rule of evidence that bars the admission of a person's character or character trait to prove action in conformity with that trait on a particular occasion. The rule permits evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts when offered for a non-propensity purpose such as motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident, provided the evidence satisfies conditional relevance standards and is not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice.
Finn Fletcher faces trial for selling stolen electronics across state lines. The government offers testimony that Fletcher previously handled similar unmarked goods from the same supplier three months earlier. The court admits the testimony after finding the jury could reasonably conclude Fletcher committed the prior act and that its value on knowledge outweighs prejudice.
Fatima Flores is prosecuted for distributing videos depicting animal cruelty. The government seeks to introduce her earlier online posts showing similar acts to establish knowledge of the content. The court weighs whether the posts serve a non-propensity purpose before deciding admissibility.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Frank Fisher, charged as a felon in possession of a handgun, offers to stipulate to his prior felony status. The prosecutor nevertheless seeks to introduce the full details of the earlier conviction. The court must decide whether the detailed evidence adds meaningful probative value beyond the stipulation.
Faith Fitzgerald stands trial for wire fraud involving false invoices. The government offers evidence of two earlier billing schemes with different victims to prove intent and plan. The court evaluates whether the acts are sufficiently similar and reliable to cross the admissibility threshold.
Fiona Foster is tried for robbery after an earlier prosecution for the same incident ended in acquittal. The government offers testimony from the first trial to show identity through modus operandi. The court assesses whether the evidence meets the conditional relevance standard despite the acquittal.
Francesca Fowler testifies in her own defense and states she has never committed similar offenses. The prosecutor seeks to introduce a prior conviction on cross-examination to rebut the implication. The court determines whether the door has been opened under the character rules.
Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts may be admitted when offered for a purpose other than proving character, such as motive, intent, knowledge, or absence of mistake. The evidence must satisfy the Rule 104(b) standard that the jury could reasonably find the act occurred and must survive Rule 403 balancing.
Supporting sources
Rule 404(a)(1) generally prohibits character evidence to prove conduct in conformity with a trait in civil cases. Narrow exceptions exist only in criminal cases for defendants and victims under 404(a)(2).
Supporting sources
The trial court need not find by a preponderance that the defendant committed the prior act. Admission is proper if sufficient evidence exists for the jury to reasonably conclude the act occurred and the probative value on a non-propensity issue is not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice.
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…