At trial, the defendant calls a witness to testify that the plaintiff's key witness is known in the community for being dishonest in business dealings. The plaintiff’s attorney objects and argues that this type of testimony is inadmissible. How should the court decide?
The objection should be sustained because evidence about dishonesty in business dealings is unrelated to the general character of the witness.
The objection should be overruled because the rules of evidence permit a witness's character for truthfulness or untruthfulness to be shown through reputation testimony.
The objection should be sustained because evidence of untruthfulness is inadmissible unless it relates to a criminal conviction.
The objection should be overruled because any testimony about a person's moral character is admissible in determining credibility.
The objection should be overruled because the rules of evidence permit a party to introduce evidence of a witness's character for untruthfulness in the form of reputation testimony. Such evidence must specifically address truthfulness or untruthfulness, and testimony about dishonesty in business dealings is directly tied to credibility. Incorrect answers may result from misunderstanding the scope of permissible character testimony or misapplying the rules about general character evidence versus credibility-specific evidence. The correct decision ensures the rules governing the admissibility of reputation evidence are properly applied.
Ask Bash
Bash is our AI bot, trained to help you pass your exam. AI Generated Content may display inaccurate information, always double-check anything important.
What is reputation testimony in legal contexts?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
What are the rules of evidence regarding character evidence?