May the defendant introduce evidence of specific violent acts by the victim? Why?

• A. Yes, to show the victim's character for violence.
• B. No, because no specific acts are ever admissible.
• C. Yes, to prove specific intent or knowledge, identity, plan, system, habit, or usage.
• D. Yes, to show the defendant's state of mind.

Answer: (C)

The key idea is that evidence of a victim’s specific violent acts isn’t offered to paint the victim as generally violent. Instead, these acts can be admitted for narrow, legitimate purposes other than character—such as proving specific intent or knowledge, or establishing identity, plan, system, habit, or usage in relation to the conduct on trial.

This is why the evidence may be admitted: it helps show that the defendant acted with or faced a particular state of mind or a particular pattern of behavior, rather than proving the victim’s overall character. For example, prior violent acts by the victim can establish a habitual pattern of violence (habit), or they can demonstrate that the victim had knowledge of how to commit violence, or fit a specific plan or system of violence, which can be relevant to the case.

Choices that aim to use the victim’s character to prove conduct on a specific occasion are not the controlling rule; and the option asserting that no specific acts are admissible is incorrect. The emphasis is on admissibility for these listed purposes, not on broad character evidence.