When are specific acts of misconduct admissible?

Specific acts of misconduct are admissible when they are relevant to prove a material fact other than character. This principle is rooted in the idea that while a person’s character or prior bad acts generally cannot be used to suggest that they acted in accordance with that character on a specific occasion, there are exceptions. If the misconduct is directly relevant to key issues in the case, such as motive, intent, knowledge, or absence of mistake, it can be presented as evidence.

For example, if a defendant's previous misconduct is pertinent to establishing a pattern or proving a specific intent behind an action in the case at hand, it can be introduced as evidence despite being linked to character. This approach aims to allow a more complete understanding of the context while avoiding the risk of unfair prejudice that comes from character evidence alone.

In contrast, the other options do not correctly encapsulate when specific acts of misconduct can be deemed admissible. For instance, prior convictions have their own set of rules regarding admissibility, separate from the broader category of specific acts of misconduct. Similarly, using a victim's character to prove self-defense does not fall under the same admissibility rules as acts of the defendant.