Defendant may offer evidence of victim's pertinent trait, if admitted, prosecutor may rebut.

Defendant may offer evidence of victim's pertinent trait, if admitted, prosecutor may rebut.

• A. Defendant may offer evidence of victim's pertinent trait, if admitted, prosecutor may rebut.
• B. Prosecutor may offer trait about defendant.
• C. Witness's trait may be admitted without foundation.
• D. Character evidence of victim is never admissible.

Answer: (A)

The key idea is how character evidence is handled when the victim’s character is put at issue by the defense. If the defendant introduces evidence of a victim’s pertinent trait to support a theory about what happened, that option is allowed because the evidence is aimed at showing how the victim conducted themselves in this specific situation. Once such a trait has been admitted, the prosecutor is allowed to counter it with rebuttal evidence—showing the opposite trait or otherwise challenging the victim’s portrayal—to keep the trial fair and prevent a misleading picture. This approach balances allowing meaningful defense evidence with giving the prosecution a chance to respond. The other choices don’t fit because they misstate who can introduce what or the basic rules about admissibility. It isn’t about the prosecutor introducing a trait about the defendant in this context, and a witness’s trait isn’t admissible without proper foundation and relevance. It’s also false to claim that victim’s character is never admissible; there are limited exceptions when the defendant properly raises a pertinent trait and the prosecution may rebut.

The key idea is how character evidence is handled when the victim’s character is put at issue by the defense. If the defendant introduces evidence of a victim’s pertinent trait to support a theory about what happened, that option is allowed because the evidence is aimed at showing how the victim conducted themselves in this specific situation. Once such a trait has been admitted, the prosecutor is allowed to counter it with rebuttal evidence—showing the opposite trait or otherwise challenging the victim’s portrayal—to keep the trial fair and prevent a misleading picture. This approach balances allowing meaningful defense evidence with giving the prosecution a chance to respond.

The other choices don’t fit because they misstate who can introduce what or the basic rules about admissibility. It isn’t about the prosecutor introducing a trait about the defendant in this context, and a witness’s trait isn’t admissible without proper foundation and relevance. It’s also false to claim that victim’s character is never admissible; there are limited exceptions when the defendant properly raises a pertinent trait and the prosecution may rebut.