Rule 404 and Character Evidence

Rule 404 generally prohibits the use of character evidence to prove that someone acted in accordance with that character.
Character evidence cannot be used to show that someone did something simply because they possess a particular characteristic or personality.

It's inadmissible to argue that because someone stole previously, they must have stolen again.
A defendant should be convicted or acquitted based on their actions, not on perceived personality traits.
A court cannot convict someone solely based on the jury's perception of their criminal personality.

Debi is on trial for allegedly robbing someone at knifepoint.
The prosecutor wants to introduce evidence that Debi previously stole money from a safe.
The prosecutor's argument is that Debi's past action demonstrates she's willing to commit crimes for money, making it more likely she committed the knifepoint robbery.
Under Rule 404, the evidence of Debi breaking into the safe is likely inadmissible.
The prosecutor is attempting to prove Debi committed the knifepoint robbery because it aligns with her character trait of committing crimes to obtain money.
Instead, the prosecutor must prove Debi committed the knifepoint robbery, not merely that she has a “criminal” personality.

There are circumstances where evidence of Debi breaking into the safe could be admissible
For example, to prove she knew how to access safes to hide the stolen money.

Rule 404 restricts the introduction of evidence related to a person's character or personality.
Evidence of character generally cannot be used to prove that someone acted in accordance with a particular character trait.
Evidence of someone’s characteristics based on past actions or reputation might be admissible for other purposes, aside from proving conduct in accordance with character.