Evidence of a crime, wrong, etc. is not admissible to prove a person's character to show that they acted in accordance with that character.

Evidence of a crime, wrong, etc. is not admissible to prove a person's character to show that they acted in accordance with that character.

• A. It is admissible to prove conduct.
• B. It may be used for showing opportunity.
• C. It may be used to prove knowledge.
• D. Evidence of a crime, wrong, etc. is not admissible to prove a person's character to show that they acted in accordance with that character.

Answer: (D)

The main idea here is that you cannot use evidence of a crime or other bad act to prove a person’s character in order to show they acted in conformity with that character on a particular occasion. This is the general rule against using character evidence to prove conduct. The goal is to prevent a jury from convicting someone because of their character rather than the facts of what actually happened. So, the statement captures that rule precisely: evidence of a crime or wrong cannot be admitted to prove that a person acted in accordance with that character. There are narrow exceptions where evidence of prior acts can be offered for purposes other than character (like proving motive, opportunity, intent, knowledge, or identity, or when character itself is an essential element), but those are specific non-character purposes, not ways to prove conduct by relying on character. The other choices imply admissibility for proving conduct or using prior acts to show opportunity or knowledge, which would misapply the basic restriction on character evidence unless a proper non-character purpose and foundation are met.

The main idea here is that you cannot use evidence of a crime or other bad act to prove a person’s character in order to show they acted in conformity with that character on a particular occasion. This is the general rule against using character evidence to prove conduct. The goal is to prevent a jury from convicting someone because of their character rather than the facts of what actually happened.

So, the statement captures that rule precisely: evidence of a crime or wrong cannot be admitted to prove that a person acted in accordance with that character. There are narrow exceptions where evidence of prior acts can be offered for purposes other than character (like proving motive, opportunity, intent, knowledge, or identity, or when character itself is an essential element), but those are specific non-character purposes, not ways to prove conduct by relying on character.

The other choices imply admissibility for proving conduct or using prior acts to show opportunity or knowledge, which would misapply the basic restriction on character evidence unless a proper non-character purpose and foundation are met.