In a battery trial, a defendant calls a neighbor to testify to his reputation for truthfulness and for peacefulness. The government objects to the testimony. How should the court rule?

• A. Admit the evidence regarding peacefulness; exclude truthfulness
• B. Admit reputation for both truthfulness and peacefulness
• C. Exclude reputation for both
• D. Admit truthfulness only

Answer: (A)

Whether a defendant acted in conformity with a character trait on the charged occasion is governed by the rules about character evidence. A trait that is pertinent to the conduct in question can be used to support an inference about how the defendant acted during the incident. Peacefulness is a trait that directly bears on the likelihood of violent conduct, so testimony about the defendant’s reputation for peacefulness is relevant to whether he committed battery and is admissible as character evidence under that framework. The defense may present this to suggest the defendant was less likely to engage in a violent act, with the government free to rebut with evidence of the opposite character.

Reputation for truthfulness, by contrast, is a trait used to assess credibility of a witness rather than to prove conduct on the occasion charged. It does not help establish whether the battery occurred, and extrinsic reputation evidence about truthfulness is generally not admissible to substantively prove truthfulness of the defendant’s statements unless the defendant is testifying and credibility is at issue in a way that Rule 608 allows. In this scenario, the court should therefore admit evidence about peacefulness to support the defense, but exclude the reputation for truthfulness as unrelated to the charged conduct.