In a homicide case prosecutor may offer evidence of the victim's trait of peacefulness to rebut evidence that the victim was first aggressor.

In a homicide case prosecutor may offer evidence of the victim's trait of peacefulness to rebut evidence that the victim was first aggressor.

• A. The defendant's trait of peacefulness may be admitted.
• B. In a homicide case, the prosecutor may offer evidence of the victim's trait of peacefulness to rebut evidence that the victim was the first aggressor.
• C. The judge decides whether to admit it.
• D. A witness's prior violence may be proven.

Answer: (B)

In homicide cases there’s a narrow exception to the general rule that character evidence can’t be used to prove conduct on a specific occasion. When the defense offers evidence that the victim was the aggressor or that the defendant reasonably believed self-defense was necessary, the prosecution may respond by presenting evidence about the victim’s peacefulness to rebut that claim. This is typically offered as reputation or opinion evidence about the victim’s character for peacefulness, not as proof of specific past acts. This approach is best expressed by saying the prosecutor may offer evidence of the victim’s peacefulness to counter the assertion that the victim was the first aggressor. It’s a targeted rebuttal that keeps the focus on the relevant traits and supports the self-defense framework, rather than broad-sweeping character proof. The other ways options might frame the idea don’t fit this specific rule. The defendant’s trait would be something the defense offers, not what the prosecution introduces to rebut the aggressor claim. The judge’s decision on admissibility is important, but the core point is about the prosecutor’s permissible rebuttal under the exception. And proving a witness’s prior violence would involve different mechanisms and isn’t the standard rebuttal used to counter the victim being the aggressor.

In homicide cases there’s a narrow exception to the general rule that character evidence can’t be used to prove conduct on a specific occasion. When the defense offers evidence that the victim was the aggressor or that the defendant reasonably believed self-defense was necessary, the prosecution may respond by presenting evidence about the victim’s peacefulness to rebut that claim. This is typically offered as reputation or opinion evidence about the victim’s character for peacefulness, not as proof of specific past acts.

This approach is best expressed by saying the prosecutor may offer evidence of the victim’s peacefulness to counter the assertion that the victim was the first aggressor. It’s a targeted rebuttal that keeps the focus on the relevant traits and supports the self-defense framework, rather than broad-sweeping character proof.

The other ways options might frame the idea don’t fit this specific rule. The defendant’s trait would be something the defense offers, not what the prosecution introduces to rebut the aggressor claim. The judge’s decision on admissibility is important, but the core point is about the prosecutor’s permissible rebuttal under the exception. And proving a witness’s prior violence would involve different mechanisms and isn’t the standard rebuttal used to counter the victim being the aggressor.