^^
bbm
I disagree. This Issue is nowhere as matter of fact as OP presents.
D:12 CHARACTER-PARTICULAR TRAIT
In arriving at your verdict you may consider evidence of the defendant's character in determining whether the defendant would be likely to commit the offense charged.
NOTES ON USE
This instruction is only to be used when evidence has been admitted concerning the particular trait(s) involved in the offense charged. Lutz v. People, 133 Colo. 229, 293 P.2d 646 (1956). While the Supreme Court of Colorado has ruled that the failure to give this instruction is not reversible error, Reigan v. People, 120 Colo. 472, 210 P.2d 991 (1949), the better practice would be to use this instruction when it is appropriate.
https://www.courts.state.co.us/user...ructions/CHAPTER_DEvidentiaryInstructions.pdf
BBM.
Respectfully, this jury instruction is to be given "...when evidence has been admitted concerning the particular trait(s) involved in the offense charged." Evidence of the accused's character can only be introduced if the
defendant first introduces it, under CRE 404:
"
Rule 404 - Character Evidence; Other Crimes, Wrongs, or Acts
(a)Character evidence generally.
Evidence of a person's character or a trait of his character is not admissible for the purpose of proving that he acted in conformity therewith on a particular occasion, except:
(1)Character of accused. In a criminal case, evidence of a pertinent trait of his character
offered by an accused, or by the prosecution to rebut the same or if evidence of the alleged victim's character for aggressiveness or violence is offered by an accused and admitted under Rule 404(a)(2), evidence of the same trait of character of the accused offered by the prosecution;
..."
My belief that the jury will not hear evidence concerning BM's character is based on several assumptions:
1. BM will not introduce evidence of his character for honesty, docility, affection for his wife, or any other pertinent trait, because it will open the door for the prosecution to rebut the same.
2. BM will not attempt to introduce evidence of SM's character for aggressiveness for similar reasons.
3. The judge has already ruled that the prosecution cannot introduce evidence of BM's prior acts of physical abuse for the purpose of showing motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident under the rule.
I am most certain that the kind of speculation about BM's character that WSers have indulged here will not be presented to the jury.
